"Saul" called off

[RichardB]

You can have your “radical vision”. I think I am familiar with it, and to my mind it is every bit as bad as Trumpiness in the other direction. It also doesn’t have much to do with Marx, or with anything that is workable in the “real world”. But go ahead, knock yourself out.

Might I respectfully suggest that other forums exist for dismissing fellow members' opinions in this kind of way.

[PatrickMurtha]

Might I respectfully suggest that other forums exist for dismissing fellow members' opinions in this kind of way.

Oh please, my opinions get knocked about all the time. They already have, right here, and I’ve been on the forum for like three days. If you can find fascism evil, I can find your brand of socialism…well, unappealing.

And I’m sorry, but the minute someone uses the phrase “radical vision” in all seriousness…Radical egalitarian beliefs and language led to the slaughter of countless millions of people during the 20th Century, just as fascism did.

[teamsaint]

Don’t you see what you are doing? You are taking it as an assumption that free speech, free association, freedom of thought, and anti-racism, all undefined, are “good things”, and since socialists are for those good things, and fascists are presumably against them, there is no symmetry. Well, I might * agree with you that those are generally good things (although “anti-racism” now encloses an entire political program that I have problems with). But their goodness can’t be assumed in this kind of argument. Further, if someone tries to make this elementary point, the immediate weaponized response is, “What? You're against these obviously good things?”, thereby making that questioner look tainted.

Plenty of socialists AND fascists just feel their basic position is proven and proceed on that basis. So there is some symmetry there.

* Or might not. I’m uneasy with Lockean assumptions, always have been. The Jeffersonian phrase “All men [or people, if you prefer] are created equal” is so obviously not true, I don’t even know where to begin.

Plenty of centrists feel that their basic position is proven and proceed on that basis. The consequences of this are disastrous intolerance, and a calamitous failure to allow others to express creatively or radically about the issues all around us. And it has driven a lot of people into potentially dangerous places, eg the populist extremes .

[Serial_Apologist]

Plenty of centrists feel that their basic position is proven and proceed on that basis. The consequences of this are disastrous intolerance, and a calamitous failure to allow others to express creatively or radically about the issues all around us. And it has driven a lot of people into potentially dangerous places, eg the populist extremes .

Meanwhile capitalism which acts like an unquenchable beast in its ineluctable appetite eating up the natural balance of the ecosphere (without which we would not be here as a species in the first place) is overwhelmingly sanctioned by almost all respectable academic sources of economic wisdom as the model to be emulated by underdeveloping countries if they are to see their people attaining lifestyles equivalent to those of the West. The nearest thing in my lifetime to the deep-seated transvaluation of values needed took place in the 1960s, but that was a revolution limited to the cultural sphere which never carried beyond the social into the economic and political spheres; it's going to take a co-ordination of various disciplines already there for the taking to be harnessed for purposes of change. The sixties really was a remarkable decade in sop many respects, even though still exclusionary to many minorities whose lot we needed bringing to our attention. That has still some way to go (obviously) but capitalist ideology with its omnipresent tendency to blame by scapegoating rather than seeing capitalism as primarily a systemic problem constantly gets in the way by stymying steps towards a common vision. Probably were one to gather together the best ideas that have been expressed in different arenas at different times on this forum and as clearly as possible articulate their common underlying principles this place could be one among many starting points on a journey of human renewal, if that doesn't sound too apocalyptic.

[Joseph K]

And I’m sorry, but the minute someone uses the phrase “radical vision” in all seriousness…Radical egalitarian beliefs and language led to the slaughter of countless millions of people during the 20th Century, just as fascism did.

I thought you said you knew Marx? Who would not have recognised the USSR as a socialist, let alone communist society. There are various reasons for this - the material conditions of Russia at the time, the failure of the German (and potentially other) revolution leaving Russia isolated while besieged by Western Imperial powers, civil war... and so on. The fact is, Stalinism (and Maoism) are caricatures of Marxism - even Bertrand Russell, no fan of Marx's thought, acknowledged that Marx was a democrat, not an autocrat and that 'dictatorship of the proletariat' meant working class self-governance or popular democracy of the kind found in the Paris Commune. And even if the USSR did have aspects that could be described as socialist, well, so did or does the UK e.g. the NHS which puts into practice one radical egalitarian belief that everyone ought to have access to health care irrespective of their ability to pay for it i.e. free at the point of use. You would also do well to acknowledge the tens of millions of people who have died under capitalism due to famine, drought and disease all of which were readily preventable many of whose causes were free market dogma in action e.g. soaring grain prices.
And that is before we get to other crimes committed in the name of imperialism, such as in the Belgian Congo...

[PatrickMurtha]

I’m not tarring Marx with the sins of his “followers”, as may be seen from other posts of mine. I admire Marx enormously. But I think that the reason that the dictatorship of the proletariat doesn’t work is that autocrats will always take advantage and emerge…Animal Farm, this is pretty basic.

There is no way on earth that Marx can be considered a radical egalitarian. For one thing, he so clearly considered himself superior to EVERYONE else!

I would be OK with calling myself a Hobbesian (one of my two favorite philosophers, along with Hume). The nicey-nice stuff is never going to work, because humans aren’t like that. Haven’t we had plenty of evidence of that in just the past few years?

I’m not aware that I’ve said a single word in this forum (yet) in defense of capitalism. I have mixed feelings about it - is that permissible, to have mixed feelings? I do think there is some distance between shopping at the supermarket and pillaging the Belgian Congo (yes, I’ve read King Leopold’s Ghosts). But there I go, crazy me again…

Anyway, I’ve made my beliefs clear, like or dislike as you will. I took a day off to clear my head - that was a good idea. Back to music!

[Serial_Apologist]

I’m not tarring Marx with the sins of his “followers”, as may be seen from other posts of mine. I admire Marx enormously. But I think that the reason that the dictatorship of the proletariat doesn’t work is that autocrats will always take advantage and emerge…Animal Farm, this is pretty basic.

There is no way on earth that Marx can be considered a radical egalitarian. For one thing, he so clearly considered himself superior to EVERYONE else!

I’m not aware that I’ve said a single word in this forum (yet) in defense of capitalism. I have mixed feelings about it - is that permissible, to have mixed feelings? I do think there is some distance between shopping at the supermarket and pillaging the Belgian Congo (yes, I’ve read King Leopold’s Ghosts). But there I go, crazy me again…

Anyway, I’ve made my beliefs clear, like or dislike as you will. I took a day off to clear my head - that was a good idea. Back to music!

I wrote about the following recollection on the old boards, when we were still operating under the aegis of the BBC, and I got a lot of stick for doing so. But here goes, again.

A group of us were up at the House of Commons lobbying over some issue I can't now remember, and Tony Benn came over to say hello.. While we were chatting about matters in general, a woman from another lobby nearby approached us, carrying a pro-Life banner. But rather than having a go at Benn for being pro-Choice, which is what we'd been expecting, she instead said, "Your socialism would never work, you know; it's been tried for the last 200 years and has been proved to have failed". "Well, it's only failed because it hasn't really been given a chance", Benn said; "and after all, your Christianity has been around for the past 2000 years, and that hasn't exactly worked either, has it!!"

[Joseph K]

I’m not tarring Marx with the sins of his “followers”, as may be seen from other posts of mine. I admire Marx enormously. But I think that the reason that the dictatorship of the proletariat doesn’t work is that autocrats will always take advantage and emerge…Animal Farm, this is pretty basic.

There is no way on earth that Marx can be considered a radical egalitarian. For one thing, he so clearly considered himself superior to EVERYONE else!

I would be OK with calling myself a Hobbesian (one of my two favorite philosophers, along with Hume). The nicey-nice stuff is never going to work, because humans aren’t like that. Haven’t we had plenty of evidence of that in just the past few years?

I’m not aware that I’ve said a single word in this forum (yet) in defense of capitalism. I have mixed feelings about it - is that permissible, to have mixed feelings? I do think there is some distance between shopping at the supermarket and pillaging the Belgian Congo (yes, I’ve read King Leopold’s Ghosts). But there I go, crazy me again…

Anyway, I’ve made my beliefs clear, like or dislike as you will. I took a day off to clear my head - that was a good idea. Back to music!

On the basis of this post, I have come to the conclusion that you don't understand Marx or capitalism. So yeah, better get back to the music...

[PatrickMurtha]

On the basis of this post, I have come to the conclusion that you don't understand Marx or capitalism. So yeah, better get back to the music...

Dude, I have taught these subjects, I graduated magna cum laude from Yale, I was the top student in my grad school cohort, I was elected to the educators’ honor society Phi Delta Kappa, I’ve sat on multiple boards of directors of arts and civic organizations, and my IQ is probably 40 points higher than yours. So yeah.

[Serial_Apologist]

Dude, I have taught these subjects, I graduated magna cum laude from Yale, and my IQ is probably 40 points higher than yours. So yeah.

In the case of Joseph K, that would be quite impossible. I know the dude.

[PatrickMurtha]

And what has he done? Give me some specifics. I could give you my specifics for days. My guess is that he is just another ranter, but I would respect being proved wrong.

I notice that many of the hardcore leftists in this forum have almost empty User Profiles.

And look, I’m giving him credit for 124 IQ. That’s not bad!

People enjoy cockfights, so I’m sure that some are getting entertainment value out of this one.

[oddoneout]

The original topic seems a long way away from the current exchanges. Time to start a new thread?

[Joseph K]

Dude, I have taught these subjects, I graduated magna cum laude from Yale, I was the top student in my grad school cohort, I was elected to the educators’ honor society Phi Delta Kappa, and my IQ is probably 40 points higher than yours. So yeah.

I'm afraid I'm with Stephen Jay Gould when it comes to IQ.

And I mean, when I said I thought you didn't understand Marx or capitalism, rather than brandishing your accomplishments you could have asked me why. A dialogue could have ensued. Instead you've chosen to start a flame war - and sending a private message telling me to eff off - is that the kind of etiquette they taught you at Yale?

Anyway, I won't indulge your apparent desire for a flame war, but I will address why I thought you didn't understand Marx or capitalism: 1) the ultimate stage of society he proposed was without class i.e. free communism, which is what a radical egalitarian society is, irrespective of whether or not someone thinks themselves superior to everyone else (which I don't think Marx did, BTW). 2) the example I gave of the dictatorship of the proletariat was in actual fact the Paris Commune of 1871, where in fact an autocrat did not arise and co-opt. 3) shopping in a supermarket isn't an example of capitalism.

[PatrickMurtha]

The original topic seems a long way away from the current exchanges. Time to start a new thread?

It wouldn’t matter to me. The whole thing has gotten kind of silly.

[PatrickMurtha]

I'm afraid I'm with Stephen Jay Gould when it comes to IQ.

And I mean, when I said I thought you didn't understand Marx or capitalism, rather than brandishing your accomplishments you could have asked me why. A dialogue could have ensued. Instead you've chosen to start a flame war - and sending a private message telling me to eff off - is that the kind of etiquette they taught you at Yale?

Anyway, I won't indulge your apparent desire for a flame war, but I will address why I thought you didn't understand Marx or capitalism: 1) the ultimate stage of society he proposed was without class i.e. free communism, which is what a radical egalitarian society is, irrespective of whether or not someone thinks themselves superior to everyone else (which I don't think Marx did, BTW). 2) the example I gave of the dictatorship of the proletariat was in actual fact the Paris Commune of 1871, where in fact an autocrat did not arise and co-opt. 3) shopping in a supermarket isn't an example of capitalism.

You insulted me, I insulted you back. I didn’t start the flame war. But whatever.

Your points (1) and (2) are decent if arguable, I’ll give you credit there, although there was scarcely much time for an autocrat to emerge in the short-lived Commune. Give it a few more years!

But I am growing tired of the exchange, because each attempt to explain my position just produces more brickbats. You hardcores are very sure of yourselves, in fact much more so than I am, because although I am intellectually confident, I don’t pretend to have the answers. Nor do I think Marx had them - he was much better at diagnosis than either prescription or prediction. I am skeptical as to how strongly he actually believed in some of his own farthest-reach conclusions, but that’s a hunch and I’m not going to write a book about it. Past a certain point, like any great philosopher, he was building a beautiful intellectual structure and flying free of reality to at least some extent. They all do it.

Marxist theory - and this is not Marx’s fault - is one of the refuges of people who just can't get on the world as it is.

OK, I will either at this point (1) try to get back to music, or (2) vacate the board altogether, because let’s just say that I do not think I have many kindred spirits here. It is surprising to me how dominated the forum seems to be by the far left.