phyllo wrote: Notice how this :
Yeah, that's your rendition of it. And, in embracing it, you project [to me] as someone basically arguing that anyone who does not think and feel exactly the same way is [must be] wrong.
How can they not be when you are so fiercely certain that you are right? It's either this or one or another variation of, "they're right from their side, we're right from ours."
Then those on both sides [all sides] yank out sets of historical facts to bolster their claims. And then argue heatedly over what either was or was not "appropriate".
Same thing regarding those who detest capitalism.
contrasts with this:
On the contrary, my argument revolves more around the assumption that with respect to value judgments relating to such things as abortion and Communism, many sides are able to construct arguments which can be construed as reasonable given a particular set of assumptions about the human condition.
If, for example, human interactions are said to revolve more around "we" than "me", then one or another rendition of socialism seems more reasonable. Unless, of course it is the other way around. Then, sure capitalism makes more sense.
In the latter, there is some sort of "reasonable arguments" - some sort of valid process.
In the former, there are two sides simply insisting that they are correct based on (I guess) what they want to be true - no process involved. No process is examined for validity.
Yes, you may well be pointing out something important here that I keep missing. But I do keep missing it.
Someone can attack Communism convinced that their argument reflects either the best assessment of it, or the only possible rational assessment that there is of it.
Or they can surmise that here and now their argument is thought by them to be the best [using whatever "process" appeals to them], but acknowledging that this is only because they start with certain assumptions about human interactions. That, for example, as the Ayn Rand Objectivists insist, "I" is the fundamental building block in human relationships. But then others argue that "we" is more plausable. They champion a "collectivist" approach to the community they live in. And, among them, are those who incorporate Marx and Engels into their analysis. They embrace Communism as "scientifically" the final synthesis in the material evolution of political economy.
So, what "shifting" do you see here?
Yeah, that's how the objectivists think about these things. It makes no difference what the new revolutionaries do because the damn thing is inherently broken. And they have the arguments to prove it.
phyllo wrote: As if it can't be inherently broken.
But sure, try it again and kill a few more millions.
I'm not arguing that it isn't inherently broken. I'm suggesting instead that many who insist that it is, are not willing to sufficiently explore the manner in which I approach these value judgments as embodied existentially
in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
Instead, they take that existential leap to a set of political prejudices based on the assumption that their own understanding of the Gulags and the political repression can only be understood if they grasp the extent to which Communism
is inherently broken. That's their default frame of mind in examining anything relating to it.
Just as, one way or another, the Libertarians and Objectivists are able to rationalize all of the terrible things that those opposed to capitalism can point out. It's just "human nature". Or it's not
real capitalism. Or human interactions necessarily [genetically] revolve around survival of the fittest.
And, again, that's before we get to all of those [the moral nihilists] who care
only about what capitalism can do for them.
Note to others: What does this tell you about the sophistication of his thinking here?
phyllo wrote: Marx wasn't actually studying a communist society and reporting the results. Right? He was proposing that a society ought to work in a certain way. It's what he thought a "good" society would be like.
More to the point, he was extrapolating into the future based on what a "scientific" understanding of political economies from the past -- nomadic, hunter and gather, slash and burn, sedentary farming, cultivation, mercantilism etc. -- would precipitate. And he was doing it at a time when the horrors embedded in the Industrial Revolution made life a virtual hell for many toiling among "the masses". It was the best of both worlds. Not only was socialism the next step organically/historically in the evolution of the "means of production" but it created a world in which so many more were imagined to be better off.
phyllo wrote: And sure, he saw some of the evils of capitalism and he wanted to avoid them. But was his solution adequate or correct?
His solution [as many point out] was never actually pursued. The socialist revolutions unfolded in nations that were still largely agrarian. There was no industrial base upon which the collectivists could launch their workers revolutions. Instead, the "dictatorship of the proletariet" was hammered into whatever actual substructure was around. And, yes, the rest is history. But it is the moral and political objectivists who insist there is one and only one way in which to understand all of this.
The bottom line is that neither the purist socialists nor the purist capitalists prevailed. Instead, state/crony capitalism has spread around the globe. And the folks who own and operate it are, in going "back to the beginning: morality", basically insterested only in whatever sustains their own wealth and power.
phyllo wrote: And notice that you seem to be suggesting that Marx's writings are not just existential contraptions "in his head". Which would be your accusation towards me and others if we had written his stuff.
If you read him, you will note that as a "left-Hegelian", he was intent on going the materialist route. He attempted to examine the history of political economy to date and extrapolate into the future based on his own interpretion of "
dialectical materialism".
Not in a world where the significant changes embraced by some are construed as horrible and terrible by others.
phyllo wrote:Well, we're talking about murder and enslavement and a police state, etc.
Which, from my point of view, your point of view wants to attribute to Communism being "inherently broken". These things were never not going to happen. And when others attempt to rationalize what did happen based on the arguments I proposed above, their "process" is inherently flawed too. Why? Because your "process" gets it right. Then around and around we go.
To wit:
You continue to misunderstand me. The Communists and the capitalists in the objectivist camps are generally authoritarians. The evils of the other side necessarily go away if the revolution is successful. In other words, the revolution [in a Hegelian sense] reflects "the final synthesis". It's just a matter of whether this synthesis is embedded more in materialism, idealism, or God.
phyllo wrote: Too general and abstract. I invite you to bring it down to earth.
Yeah, you argue this. But my suspicion is that only when someone brings everything down to earth in sync with your own assumption that Communism is "inherently broken" will they
really be bringing it all down to earth.
Meanwhile, you simply won't go in the direction that your own value judgments here are reflected more in the need [psychologically] for you to ground "I" in the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".
The only point of view here inherently
not broken.
And how "comforting and consoling" is that?
