Capitalism and the Natural Order is under Assault by Society’s Worst Elements

Ah, the "OECD Socialist Darling" narrative, haven't ever seen that here... about 1000 times. Hogwash.

1. Norway especially, and the other eensy weensy teeny tiny (each of them could fit in my SINGLE STATE of 50), culturally homogenous OECD "socialist" darlings are stinking resource rich. Norway is so rich per capita (and check out their immigration laws and enforcement compared to ours... they intend to keep it that way) it could govern by Magic 8 Ball and do just fine. Apples-oranges.

2. They are not a union of disparate states, a melting pot with disparate interests, governed locally, by state, and then centrally from over 1000 miles away. That kind of governmental homogeneity in addition to cultural, racial and ethnic homogeneity in a tiny country allows for things to work... if in the short or intermediate term... that could never work in a country like the U.S. Apples-oranges.

3. We insure their defense. U.S. taxpayers subsidize the necessity of military expenditure all over the world to an immense degree, and the OECD Darlings are no exception. Sure you can make most anything work... while someone else is paying for it. Apples-oranges.

4. Name a country with a very diverse population of over 200 million where socialism is "working," or has ever worked, and for every one you name, I'll name a socialist atrocity in countries of all sizes... socialism leads only to poverty, oppression, suffering, despair and mass murder (and rich bureaucrats)... unless you have enough money or bat guano, and a small enough population to make it work... short term. And yeah, all those atrocities took place under -real- collectivism, whatever semantic labeling chicanery you may resort to in a failed dodge. And no, there is no possible equivalence between the murderous horrors of socialism and ANYTHING the U.S. has ever done in its entire history. None.

Regardless of the above, the argument "well it worked in Wingwangistan! so we should do it in the U.S." is absurd on its face. Wingwangistan, or Norway, is not the U.S., and even if there were an apples-apples comparison available, that still wouldn't surmount the moral arguments against socialism in relation to the miracle of free commerce, strong property rights, the Constitutional Republic, self-determination as opposed to fiat oppression, and all the vast increases in standard of living those governing principles have created the world over.

 

This is a perverted form of the Benthem argument from scarcity. Systems of scale compensate for more aggregate demand, organization, production, distribution because a "large" (fallacy of linear ambiguity) economy also has an increase in potential productive labour power in parallel to met new demand with the advancement of technology--which Marx was the first to note and was fascinated with.

Question begging epithets - "wingwangistan" "chicaner" "murderous". The Narvana Fallacy, Argument from Ignorance, Linear ambiguity, and many more. Sadz (sic).

 

No, it's the "Sanskrit political forum argument," and the points in it are crystal clear. Norway is resource-rich per capita, tiny, homogenous in race, ethnicity, and layers of government, subsidized defensively by the U.S., etc., making any prescriptive comparison between them and the U.S. inapt. Either discuss those points directly, or try to reference "Benthem" (sic), post more half-formed gibberish, engage in more red herring by calling fallacies that aren't there, and look more sophomoric and pretentious than you already appear.

Q.E.D.

FYI colorful, even slanted language, that accompanies substantive points or claims of fact is not fallacious. Fallacies become such when they are -substituted- for reasoning and facts. But as stated, ignoring all or most of a substantive argument in favor of red-herring fallacy calling is fallacious. It's OK, I used to do it too... 30 years ago when I was a college sophomore.

 

Begging the question all over again. So it is even less of a discussion now...just a Don Rickles insult routine. LOL, I am not going to teach you logic--you will have to do that yourself in the gutter. LOL, Enjoy.

 

No, it's not "begging the question" either. I posted a crystal clear, numbered refutation of the OECD Nordic socialism argument with respect to its prescriptive worth for U.S. policy. You ignored and didn't address those clear points and posted vague gibberish in response instead. So I repeated the points in summary form, and you still refuse to address them honestly and directly.

Remember folks, ALWAYS have a WRITTEN RECORD of ANY discussion attempted with a leftist.

As far as insults? Don't like being called sophomoric? Don't post like a sophomore.

Finally, the professors in the Philosophy department of the top liberal arts college I graduated from cum laude years ago "taught me logic" in the course of my majoring in Philosophy with honors, so there's no need for you or anyone else to do so now. You, OTOH, need help in that department desperately.

 

Whatever OP's passing, casual reference to Nietzsche was, it wasn't "schizophrenic." It also wasn't a request for a slanted generalization of Nietzsche. That there are similarities between certain aspects of Nietzsche's priestly mentality and current leftist progressivism is a fair point. There are also similarities between the priestly mentality and aspects of current conservatism. The primary characteristic of the priestly mentality is seeking power and control in society via coercive appeals to the morality of good and evil. That's it in a nutshell. For purposes of this forum and this thread, that's as deep as the analysis needs to go to demonstrate the fairness of OP's casual reference. The difference between today's LW and RW "priests" is that LW priests seek to utilize far more coercion than RW priests to a significant degree.

First part true, "arête," second part not really. The moderation of Stoicism was a later subset of broader Greek cultural norms that had prevailed for centuries prior in which excellence was defined (very vaguely) as "suitability to a purpose" that could include significant "excess" or zeal, and had little to do with notions of moderation until later. Excellence for Plato was being a good aristocrat or alternatively a prole... as vague as that seems (and it's vague in N too). Notions of moderation don't really fit with the Greeks until a bit later. As far as which was more "classic Greek" it's debatable, and I'm not interested in having that debate. It's not topical.

Nietzsche railed a lot, sure, but what he was really doing was as stated... genealogy... in preparation for the next stage, rather than outright condemnation of this or that, and he was very inconsistent in his railings. Zarathustra was John the Baptist, not Kant. Nietzsche went insane before formulating any ethics. Whether the next stage would have included this or that degree of social controls or rules we will never know. People make way too much of Nietzsche's polemics as prescriptive and they were not... either one way or the other. He didn't "hate" and condemn priests, and he didn't "love" and prescribe the "blond beast." It's far more useful, as stated, to focus on the good/evil part as a progenitor of something else, a philological point of departure rather than a condemnation. He -did- believe that Christianity and socialism were regressive impediments to the next stage. And he said almost nothing (nothing I can recall or cite) about "capitalism" a fabricated term not in common use then. Whatever nasty things he may have had to say about commerce, trade and prevailing liberal ideas of the time, they are dwarfed as a matter of fact by nasty things said about Christianity and socialism.

Because N was so inconsistent and broadly polemic, one can make a case for just about anything being his "position on X" based on quotes or aphorisms taken out of context. Only a very few consistent positions, "good and evil" among them, are the mainstays of his thought. Any googling up of curve-fitting quotes out of context will be ignored.

 

And how, pray tell, are you defining authentic? Are you saying that you are a warm, flat, half-drunk can of Natural Light?

 

The term was used to highlight the obvious historical, social, and philosophical tensions between the treatments of ancient philosophy (from the Pre-Socratics to the Hellenistic period, with particular emphasis on Plato and Aristotle) and Nietzsche's thought. It was also meant to highlight the polemical, one-sided, and ultimately self-defeating nature of such an approach (with allusions to Jordan Peterson's silly nonsense). Nothing that you present here is not found in my analysis, although you are mistaken to suggest that the analysis of the priestly class need only be surface level to accommodate the OP's reference. It's precisely the limited nature of the claim that must be addressed; to use Nietzsche in defense of some classical liberal defense of modern conservatism is perverse. This is why I put Nietzsche's critique in context, to show exactly why such an attempt is problematic. Furthermore, the claim that the priestly drive is fundamentally a mask for power isn't primarily about social or state forms of coercion, it's much more about how this leads to the internalization of nihilistic values. This is the pathology of modernity - its virtues, its sick soul. Both the left and the right (as defined in modern terms) are representatives of the Last Man. To claim that leftwing priests use more coercive means fails to grasp the meaning of Nietzsche's historical/genealogical account of transvalued value. Both left and right are savagely critiqued.

Aristotle. The virtue of moderation and balance is found in the Pre-Socratics - as well as on the Apollonian temple at Delphi ("nothing in excess" is literally inscribed above the entrance). As for Plato (middle period), excellence is defined in terms of harmony and balance, both in the state and in the soul. This is the foundational claim of the Republic. I'm not sure why you take it to be vague here.

Well Nietzsche does attempt to celebrate a certain type of morality - character based morality grounded in strength. His critique of traditional morality (or slave morality as he put it), was concerned with the problem of the personification of value - the move from classical formulations of morality defined in terms of personal character: good (strength) and bad (weakness - defined by master morality) to good (like us -defined by slave character - weak, humble, meek, democratic, fair, prudent, etc) and evil (not like us). Moreover, the latter as defined by slave morality was a series of rules and prohibitions that were said to be universally applicable and given legitimacy by some authority - these were meant to constrain not inspire and as such they are what free spirits must move beyond - so pretty sure, Nietzsche's Ubermensch wouldn't have been too concerned with setting up social controls or rules - Nietzsche wanted to let the sheep be sheep. Likewise his treatment of greed, happiness, utility, trade, and commerce speak volumes about his view of economists (personify the ignoble). That he said more about Christianity is not in dispute (his views on socialism and democracy are equally obvious).

 

And I sent you a message.

Nietzsche said, "The market draws flies." Isn't that the Truth!

 

Oh look another glaring example of Dunning Kruger run rampant.

 

Adorno and Kyklos.

Thanks for one of the most erudite discussions I have witnessed in this community.

I can't contribute much since I know what I don't know, but you've given me a pile of references to investigate. I love it when I actually learn something around here. Not a common occurrence even tho I confess I contribute to its infrequency at times.

 

Jonsa, same here. That Adorno Avatar got me up to my neck in reading...I'm doing it!

 

Your use of the term "schizophrenic" is erroneous. If you want to talk about X, Y, Z type of tensions please talk about them. Those aren't schizophrenia or "schizophrenic" though, and the above isn't really saying anything, is it? It's hopelessly vague gobbledygook. Moreover, why the repeated, but empty references to Jordan Peterson? Was there a cite to Peterson or quote I missed in the OP? Whatever "silly nonsense" of Peterson's you -aren't- stating and -aren't- refuting, what bearing does it have on OP's claims? Want me to start "fallacy-calling?"

1. You haven't "analyzed" anything in this thread. You've "talked around" a bunch of things without making many if any clear claims of fact. 2. My brief summary of the priestly class is accurate, and as OP's reference was passing and obviously informal, is all that is necessary. 3. OP seems to be criticizing progressivism, not "using N in defense of some classical liberal defense of modern conservatism." Where is OP defending "conservatism?" Did I miss that too? "Conservatism," unlike "progressivism" is a pure abstraction, a relation, not a thing in itself, derivative, and wholly contextual. In any event, the topic of this thread doesn't seem to be "conservatism." "Progressivism" OTOH means, off the top of my head and informally, "favoring government social planning and solutions, specifically central government, as opposed to private solutions to social problems." That seems to be the focus of OP's criticism. 3. And "perverse?" No. Not "schizophrenic," not "perverse."

OP claimed a casual similarity between modern progressives and the priestly class. It was fair in its context. You went off on an unnecessarily detailed tangent that didn't make much sense.

"fundamentally a mask for power? priestly drive? not primarily about social or state forms of coercion?" Are you taking issue with this "The primary characteristic of the priestly mentality is seeking power and control in society via coercive appeals to the morality of good and evil?" That's a fair reading of N, aphoristic even. I didn't say or imply anything about "masks," it's overt. What "drive?" Regardless of what ill values result from it, the primary characteristic of the priestly mentality, for our political discussion purposes, is seeking power and control in society via coercive appeals to the morality of good and evil. The internalization of decadence values doesn't make my summary incorrect in the least.

I didn't say or claim anything about N's critiques of left and right (socialism, Christianity, period "liberalism," sure, not left and right). What I claimed was that within OP's casual, passing reference to the "priestly mentality," today's leftist priests are far more coercive than those on the right. That's MY claim, address it as such or don't.

My claim is that "moderation" didn't become a major part of the Greek -cultural- notion of "excellence" until the Stoics, and that your claim it broadly underpins classical Greek thought generally, enough to single it out as -the- defining characteristic of "excellence" generally is in error. Of course there are plenty of references and homage to moderation, but other components of "excellence" are equally or even more important... or maybe the story was meant to be a boring morality play and not a celebration of Achilles' immoderate, flawed excellence. Do tell.

No, he was passingly dismissive and critical of democratic liberalism in comparison to the blistering scorn he held for socialism and Christianity. And I'll stick with my prior post re what the next step would be... other than revaluation; trying to strain ethics out of N is a mistake often made.

 

NM

Beginning to think this thread is a three-way LARP, that a single person is writing three posters' posts. Stranger things have happened on this forum.

 

I don't see leftist far more coercive than rightist (sic?). It seems to me that the pursuit of power has NOTHING to do with being conservative or liberal, right or left. I suspect you are conflating the activities of the fringe with all "leftist" while ignoring the activities of the right fringe.

To my way of thinking, I would hardly call Putin a leftist, despite his soviet upbringing. He's a pure autocratic nationalist and last time I look nationalism in either flavor has ever attained a state to match their ideological rhetoric.


(the rest of your discussion is beyond my knowledge base to render any meaningful opinion, other than it a great discussion and I'm learning a ton. )

 

First, my spider sense is tingling after rereading OP's and two other posters' posts, so I'm not at all sure you are reading a genuine discussion. Not a "human lie detector" but do get paid, partially, to recognize certain patterns in text.

To your first point, forget the priest and Nietzsche stuff for a second, and consider what side of the political fence wants more control, will freely exercise more control without blinking, over individuals... based on notions of "good and evil." Taxes and law/regulations backed by threat of violence are the primary means of governmental social control. Who wants more government, taxes, regulation for citizens (force)? Who wants less? (voluntary transactions)?

There is of course overlap, and one side will say, for example with respect to abortion, "we are preventing the evil of murder," while the other side will say, "we are preventing the evil of denying a person's right to control their body." One side would say (marijuana legalization) "we are preventing the evils and societal impact of substance abuse" while the other side will say "we are preventing the evil of denying a person right to do what they want in the personal sphere."

So both sides appeal to morality in public policy, try to take the moral high ground based on traditional notions of morality as opposed to pragmatic policy analysis, but by and large I think progressives do it more in more coercive ways today than what you all like to call "conservatives." Thought experiment: Go on a street corner and holler "GOD IS DEAD!" tally the results from onlookers. Then holler "N-WORD ARE INFERIOR!" and tally the results. Both will be a relatively noncontroversial exercise of your First Amendment rights in the U.S. that we all claim to respect. One holler will likely get you beaten if not killed outright before being arrested... most likely by white progressives. One won't even get you arrested, but anyone who messes with you while hollering it will surely be arrested.

One side put up with a President they disagreed with in huge ways for 8 years. Some fringe called for Obama's impeachment, very fringe though. Mainstream progressives are not putting up with what is in fact a far less controversial President than Obama in the grand scheme of historical POTUS actions... because they lost an election they thought they had in the bag. They have shown, far more than anyone else, the willingness to use violence and other nasty behavior in service of their notion of good and evil. That's why I say both sides do it, but progressives do it more today, such was not always the case.

To your second point, I don't know enough about Putin and Russian law under him to call him left or right. What I do know is that the terms left and right, liberal and conservative are near hopelessly vague... other than convenient shorthand for describing specific political platforms in the now.

 

lets get one thing straight American "Capitalism" isn't actual capitalism. In the US, huge corporations are propped up by tax dollars and protected from failure while small businesses are held back and kept from growing. This isn't capitalism.

In REAL capitialism, corporations who run themselves into bankruptcy are left to die as their executives jump put the windows, and then smaller businesses growand expand to fill the gaps left in the market. That's how capitalism is SUPPOSED to work. But then, without huge corporations, politicians wouldn't be given those multi-million dollar "donations". So they work to keep the huge corporations on life support.

 

This is dead false, with the probable exception of banks (who are largely backed by the state, and insured against failure. Shame on them). Most major corporations on the Forbes 500 list aren't around 30 years later - because they're competing, and they lose when they Get Too Big. Meanwhile, the government just can't seem to fail...

Take a look at your focus. You could focus on 'Crony" capitalism in an era where large companies are a necessitation to compete on a global basis (literally) or you could look at the real culprits - to steal from another poster - the Gov-Edu-Union-MSM parasitical scum who have gotten way out of line relative to their actual contributions.

 

edit: 10 characters

 

I'd like to take a moment to encourage the wiser elements on this forum to think about this for a second.

Let's say (hypothetically, of course) that you have a friendly local neighbor who you like very much. Over time though you notice a gradual change in said neighbor - he insists on taking the literal fruits of your labor - earnings (via money in the modern era) "For the Greater Good". He is increasingly aggressive in doing so - it seems to be a bottomless pit of 'Need'. What's worse - he insists that he is moral in doing so, and that you are merely being 'selfish' in protesting. This is the case of the modern Liberal, and you should remember that these "people" are not your friends.

Just my suggestion - to turn a blind eye to what the worst elements of our society are up to is a form of cowardice, to 'compromise' (the outcome inevitably being that the counterparty gains more power in some form or another) is a a terrible sin against yourself. Don't silently condone their transgressions.

 

According to whom?

 

Brewskier we'll have to agree to disagree on this aspect. While we both scorn these lowly, dirty dirty people ultimately I attribute their rise to the dissolution of a natural order - reflected mostly by capitalism. The latter part of that statement is very important and very relevant. Whereas your views seem to be based more on hereditary (rather than conscious decision-making) aspects - race, ethnicity etc.

Which is perfectly fine. But it's not in line with reality, IMO, although your mentality does address some crucial points well. But to put things in perspective - you don't really harbor contempt for the local Mexican construction worker who *probably* does something for a living that you would never be willing to do, do you? Just to keep your posts in context.

 

The other side of the chicken and egg is that without overlarge central government with excessive regulatory and other power that sells suspension of certain laws while increasing the scope of other laws unwisely, many large corporations would not be able to grow as big as they do, and smaller prospective competitors would not be stifled by government-related expenses they don't have the economies of scale to shoulder. Most of the "flaws of capitalism" cited to today are actually flaws of a highly mixed economy that is nearly as much government as private sector.

In the U.S., the financial and medical industries are the most mixed, and look at all the problems in those industries. When an industry becomes 30-50% or more government, citing failures and problems within that industry as "failures of capitalism" becomes disingenuous.

EDIT: Also want to reiterate that the .002% of large public companies the Complex constantly derogates are -not- the 30,000,000 companies in the U.S. When was the last time you saw MSM or any other branches of the Complex celebrating the true, overwhelmingly honest business climate in the U.S.? The reason they concentrate on bigness and abstractions like "capitalism" is that they want you thinking about fat cat corporate chieftains and hedge fund managers, and they want you to forget that 99%+ of U.S. business is the plumbing contractor who lives next door with his three trucks working 60 hours a week to get ahead. They want you to forget about him until he has sacrificed for 30 years, then fool you into thinking of him as a member of some static "rich" who didn't earn his money... allowing them to take more of it.

 

And tell me, when you "experience" ****, do you use you hands to feel it?

 

Noticed that you appear unwilling to support or provide any evidence that the attack has any basis in fact.

Maybe Dunning Kruger is more applicable to yourself.