Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

HB v. AB: Is collectivism the greater evil?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

In dealing with individual religionists, conservatives, liberals, or what-have-you, we should think of them and treat them as individuals, not units of a collective.  How much common ground can we find with this individual?  How open is he, she, or they to persuasion on what levels?  In deciding whom to vote for, what can we expect from this candidate, what can we expect from that one, and how do they compare?

In deciding whether and how to argue about a particular currently fought political issue, we should focus on the individual issue and its relationship to fundamental principles, not on how "liberal" or "conservative" it is.

All of the above is necessary. Except for "not on how liberal or..."etc. This can't be evaded. All those individuals you bring up, group themselves around ethical-social-political structures. For the overriding sake of a nation's near and far future we would do well to abstract, identify and assess which would do better at consolidating individual freedom and be warned (and warn) at who will do worse, and remove liberties. When rights are compromised the majority holds power over individuals.

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"?

Typical of ARI's Left-slant, in recent years. There's a battle on for the nation's control, begun by a well organized monolith of Leftist collectivists, and the US is on a socialist path - and who does Journo choose to pick on: the disunited opposition, a mixed melange of conservatives, who represent Americanism and - some or much - individualism.

Trump put them all, especially Journo, Brook and Ghate "on tilt", and they've not recovered. Now, instead of admitting to their bad errors of judgment promoting the Democrats and Biden, they choose to double-down and cover them over by dire warnings of 'nationalism'.

 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Trump put them all, especially Journo, Brook and Ghate "on tilt", and they've not recovered. Now, instead of admitting to their bad errors of judgment promoting the Democrats and Biden, they choose to double-down and cover them over by dire warnings of 'nationalism'.

Nationalism is a type of collectivism. Trump and Bannon stoked that fire. We experienced the consequences of that brand of collectivism, it is far more than a tilt.

Why don't you frame your argument with X kind of collectivism is better than Y kind of collectivism instead of claiming that "collectivism" is the differentiating aspect. It'll be much more honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

who represent Americanism and - some or much - individualism

The people he criticized literally and explicitly oppose individualism and say so themselves. In fact, they think teh lEfTiStS are the logical outcome of individualism, as they themselves say in the article.

Edited by 2046
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

the disunited opposition, a mixed melange of conservatives, who represent Americanism and - some or much - individualism.

It's like you forgot that you called it a good article overall despite what you believe are flaws.

it's just unfortunate you seem capable of nuance and acknowledging how the right is not a monolith and consists of many groups with differing goals and methods - yet not willing to engage similar nuance with anything remotely left. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The big misconception is that the progressive religious voice in this country is suddenly coming to the fore. It has been there a long time. It has a longer history in this country than the evangelical right wing; in the 1920s in Oklahoma, you would be hard-pressed to find a Southern Baptist who was not a socialist. Much of mainline Protestantism all the way back before the Civil War were abolitionists. There’s a long history of deep care for the poor, setting up universities and hospital systems in our country — that all came out of religious communities that had a very progressive vision for what the United States can be.

The newer kid on the block is right-wing conservative Christianity, which gets most of the media attention as representing Christianity in the United States.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/02/25/religious-left-politics-liberal-471640?cid=apn

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

it's just unfortunate you seem capable of nuance and acknowledging how the right is not a monolith and consists of many groups with differing goals and methods - yet not willing to engage similar nuance with anything remotely left. 

Indeed that is the very essence of binary thinking

 

13 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Why don't you frame your argument with X kind of collectivism is better than Y kind of collectivism instead of claiming that "collectivism" is the differentiating aspect. It'll be much more honest.

Indeed, if they just made an honest argument for trade offs, I'd halfway respect them. But they're very dumb

Edited by 2046
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Nationalism is a type of collectivism. Trump and Bannon stoked that fire. We experienced the consequences of that brand of collectivism, it is far more than a tilt.

Why don't you frame your argument with X kind of collectivism is better than Y kind of collectivism instead of claiming that "collectivism" is the differentiating aspect. It'll be much more honest.

Nope, don't overlook causality: Which came first. The fire was already lit and stoked, predating Trump. There were already cynical moves afoot for total power by Left collectivists, and the REACTION to them - explaining the so-called "Trump phenomenon" - was a pull in the opposing direction. The supposed 'nationalism' was of patriotic people briefly reclaiming America from anti-Americans. Do you call love for one's country collectivism?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

It's like you forgot that you called it a good article overall despite what you believe are flaws.

it's just unfortunate you seem capable of nuance and acknowledging how the right is not a monolith and consists of many groups with differing goals and methods - yet not willing to engage similar nuance with anything remotely left. 

There was and is, nothing whatsoever, disorganized or nuanced about the Left. All elements, particularly the propaganda arm, the msm, have behaved in concert and with planned deliberation, for many years. The Republicans and conservatives are nuanced, been all over the place, contra the assessment of a united, conservative nationalist front  - and until Trump came along with his support base - couldn't have won a pillow fight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

There was and is, nothing whatsoever, disorganized or nuanced about the Left. All elements, particularly the propaganda arm, the msm, have behaved in concert and with planned deliberation, for many years.

But Bernie never won. That's as "left" as you can get. Or are you talking about one of the other lefts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, 2046 said:

The people he criticized literally and explicitly oppose individualism and say so themselves. In fact, they think teh lEfTiStS are the logical outcome of individualism, as they themselves say in the article.

Who, Hazony, and others? Yes, Journo cites one book and other foreign sources, not or hardly pertinent to American conservatism, to fit his agenda. American conservatism is pretty unique, differing from British - and certainly, from Hungarian authoritarian nationalism! Anything to make an argument.

I take the view of US nationalism, that it is individualism manifested in the sovereign nation. But it's fashionable by the left to see "nationalism" as a scare word.

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

Yes, Journo cites one book and other foreign sources, not or hardly pertinent to American conservatism, to fit his agenda. American conservatism is pretty unique, differing from British - and certainly, from Hungarian authoritarian nationalism! Anything to make an argument.

Or, like, listen to the Americans telling you, a South African, that these things are real. 

You listened to Repairman. We are telling you the same thing. There is a growing trend of religious conservatism that naturally goes out of previous religious conservatism. There are philosophical connections with British conservatism particularly through Burke. Although one book is mentioned, it is arguably a very significant contribution to the philosophy of American religious conservatism. These are not nobodies. Journo identifies a specific American viewpoint, and relates it to a wider category of national conservatism that applies to other countries. 

12 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I take the view of US nationalism

Which is decidedly not the nationalism of national conservatives. By the way, these national conservatives are religious. Religion is essential to their view.

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

Except for "not on how liberal or..."etc. This can't be evaded. All those individuals you bring up, group themselves around ethical-social-political structures. For the overriding sake of a nation's near and far future we would do well to abstract, identify and assess which would do better at consolidating individual freedom and be warned (and warn) at who will do worse, and remove liberties.

"Liberal" and "conservative" are grab-bag, big-tent terms with rubbery, slippery meanings.  Rather than focus on them, we need to identify more specific, clearly defined things to "be warned (and warn) at".

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Or, like, listen to the Americans telling you, a South African, that these things are real. 

You listened to Repairman. We are telling you the same thing. There is a growing trend of religious conservatism that naturally goes out of previous religious conservatism. There are philosophical connections with British conservatism particularly through Burke. Although one book is mentioned, it is arguably a very significant contribution to the philosophy of American religious conservatism. These are not nobodies. Journo identifies a specific American viewpoint, and relates it to a wider category of national conservatism that applies to other countries. 

Which is decidedly not the nationalism of national conservatives. By the way, these national conservatives are religious. Religion is essential to their view.

At this precise moment there is more to concern you and all of us than the religious conservatives, "growing trend" or not (and if that's drawn from the main media sources, you can believe one quarter of it) which is what makes it gratuitous if not evasive for an ARI article written now, condemning them; there are bigger fish to fry, the Left socialists, and ARI's people can take some blame for that by siding with their election.

What exactly have the conservatives done or proposed to do, with their American 'nationalism' - that is so worrisome? let me hear some concrete examples - do they wish to invade other countries? Or was it "the strong man", Trump, i.e. "Hitler" that still has everyone's imaginations in overdrive? That was some effective media brainwashing.

One may take ominous parallels with the Third Reich only so far, I think, before one drops the context of very real differences.

Is there also perhaps, a growing trend of Left collectivism/wokeism/socialism/self-abnegation/cynicism around the world? Or am I imagining those?

A large and permanent vestige of individualism and worthy values remains with the great majority of conservatives - period. The overwhelming bulk of anti-individualism, anti-freedoms, power lust and resultant nihilism lies with the Leftists.

End of story.

It is called getting one's priorities straight. Objectivists have "a hierarchy of values" they can use right now.

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

From the excellent journal, Capitalist Review I found through the Andrew Bernstein debate:

"On October 15th, 2020, in an online video celebrating his 87th birthday, Dr. Peikoff had this to say:

“I am voting for Trump. That’s it! OK?”

“I’m not arguing but I heard someone say that no Objectivist would vote for Trump and I’m still steaming over that. I’m trying to publicize the fact that whoever said that is crazy.”"

(I am glad LP was also steamed over that, as I am still: "You are sell-outs to Objectivism").

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

Did we just imagine the attack on the Capitol and on the electoral process?

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?

Or, one claims powers of omniscience about future events.

But besides, if I had known then about subsequent events which I know now, my vote would still have been the same for Trump (based largely upon his opposition - what I could see coming from the Democrats, born out further now by what I see they are doing).

And besides, I assume one is democratically and legally permitted to challenge the results of an electoral process in the USA, no?

And besides - he capitulated and stepped down, didn't he?

And besides, "peacefully and patriotically..."

Only trying to balance the omissions and skewed views put out by media I hear from many.

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

which is what makes it gratuitous if not evasive for an ARI article written now, condemning them

I don't know why you said it was a good article then if you clearly think it's so bad.

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

A large and permanent vestige of individualism and worthy values remains with the great majority of conservatives - period

This just means you aren't aware of the history of conservatism. No, it isn't grounded in individualism. Not at all. It is against classical liberalism. 

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

But besides, if I had known then about subsequent events which I know now, my vote would still have been the same for Trump

I find it funny that you talk about your hypothetical vote (as opposed to saying you support) as if you really do vote in American elections. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

From "Capitalist Review" - Probable author: A Bernstein

In President Trump’s 2020 Fourth of July Speech, for all its flaws, these paragraphs stood out:

“1776 represented the culmination of thousands of years of Western civilization and the triumph of not only spirit, but of wisdom, philosophy, and reason. And yet, as we meet here tonight, there is a growing danger that threatens every blessing our ancestors fought so hard for, struggled, they bled to secure. Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children. Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our founders, deface our most sacred memorials, and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities. Many of these people have no idea why they’re doing this, but some know what they are doing. They think the American people are weak and soft ...

[...]

 

"I think that the first sentence quoted in Trump’s speech deserves emphasis:

“1776 represented the culmination of thousands of years of Western civilization and the triumph of not only spirit, but of wisdom, philosophy, and reason.”

Trump is flawed, but in mouthing the above words for that moment, Trump said something rational. Whether we like it or not, at this moment, Trump represents Western Civilization, albeit a flawed version mixed with populism and nationalism, and Biden and the Democrats with their post-modern Marxist “1619 Project” hatred of America represent those who wish to topple it. This is more-or-less the argument made by historian Victor Davis Hanson (who is by no means an Objectivist) in his Case for Trump.

My point is that opposition to Trump’s policies that are anti-capitalist and anti-freedom can be fought and won within the American framework. Trump “barks” a lot, but the American system of government restricts his “bite.”
 
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

My point is that opposition to Trump’s policies that are anti-capitalist and anti-freedom can be fought and won within the American framework. Trump “barks” a lot, but the American system of government restricts his “bite.”

That is what I was hoping for when he became president. But once I saw him slowly getting around his "restrictions", one by one, getting rid of the adults in the room and changing the nature of this country (mostly toward the left i.e. fascism with Bernie slogans), it had to stop. He was simply draining the swamp and replacing it with his own swamp.

Finally, his bark, similar to Chavez, or Stalin, or Hitler's bark, made people believe something unreasonable. It made them lose their perspective on law and order and the storm the center of government without proper justification. The restrictions didn't work.

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

I don't know why you said it was a good article then if you clearly think it's so bad.

This just means you aren't aware of the history of conservatism. No, it isn't grounded in individualism. Not at all. It is against classical liberalism. 

I find it funny that you talk about your hypothetical vote (as opposed to saying you support) as if you really do vote in American elections. 

I said it "was good as far as an intro into the divide". For the rest I thought and still do that it was a misplaced and mistimed hit piece against religionists. A pretty soft target. When, at this stage, I think it should be a full out intellectual assault by ARI on leftists. "Purges" - "Authoritarianism" - "A betrayal of America" (Journo)-- all, more fitting to the Left-Dems as to Trump and the 'nationalists', and he's not around any more.

It seems as if no one thinks like Bernstein, for one, appears to (and me too) - that this is no time for equally disparaging both the religious right and the Left. No time for throwing up one's hands and relegating both to hell and petulantly sitting on the fence out of the battle. There are times so rough one has to pick sides with whomever one shares some values, principles and common interest with. And come out and tell them so.

I have admiration for Bernstein's stand in breaking ranks with his colleagues, on his individualism v. collectivism argument.  Must have taken guts and integrity.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

btw, Victor Davis Hanson is a brilliant -conservative - scholar and historian. Ive read several of his articles

I concede that Conservativism could well be "not grounded in individualism" as you say. But are conservatives themselves?

I have a different approach to the formal, scholastic, top down method you prefer. I observe and read the people, and one like Hanson and -many- others are as individualist as they come, I reckon. Irrelevant, what they are *supposed to be* from their ideology/religion/ethics/etc. backgrounds. People have free will.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

btw, Victor Davis Hanson is a brilliant -conservative - scholar and historian. Ive read several of his articles

I concede that Conservativism could well be "not grounded in individualism" as you say. But are conservatives themselves?

I have a different approach to the formal, scholastic, top down method you prefer. I observe and read the people, and one like Hanson and -many- others are as individualist as they come. Irrelevant, what they are *supposed to be* from their ideology/religion/ethics/etc. People have free will.

What is relevant is Hanson and other conservatives embraced a random pragmatic tendency when they supported Trump's mercantilist direction. If he is your template, it means "sometimes in favor of individualism" until it comes time to enforce his version of the "public good".

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...