Last I heard, kids were being taught that the natives were victims and the whites are devils. I can't imagine a student making it through high school (hell, middle school) without learning about small pox blankets, the natives teaching the pilgrims how to fertilize crops (lol), the dark side of Manifest Destiny, buying Manhattan for a box of beads, white people being the ones who started the whole 'scalping' thing, and probably a bunch of other "oh those poor natives" anecdotes.
Value is loosely defined in my usage, it does not automatically mean an increase in money value. An reduction in effort for an outcome, saving time and trouble would be an increase in value. I apologize for the misunderstanding. I read a lot of Economic books and value is used with that understanding in economic books.
I said literally knowing the meaning of both literally and utopia. Utopia: The word comes from the Greek: οὐ (“not”) and τόπος (“place”) and means “no place”. Utopia is a unreachable place… By definition, no, the modern world is not a utopia to those living in the past, because we reached it…
Is this insulting me? If so, please point out what I lied about. If this is towards conservatives in general, you are probably right. Though, I pointed to an actual book that says it’s OK to lie in the name of promoting progressivism, can you do the same for conservatives.
Very true. I’ve known many people coming over from Europe say so. Progressivism, though, is roughly the same on both continents. It’s why I try to call progressives, progressive, or failing that pragmatists. Sadly, I’ll admit I use Liberal interchangeably, it’s strange how lingo gets into the head…
Additionally, Conservative means different things between the continents, for conservatives in the US we see ourselves as conserving the values of the United States War of Indepence. Specifically the attempt to gain freedom for all, allowing for no class division and a restriction of the government by the people, not the people by the government. This does not limit us to a static view of the future, only that we keep the past with us and that we move forward carefully, understanding what is at risk.
So you don’t think the outcome of the conflict that happened was inequitable for the natives?
Why change the subject? Stick to your point about how winners write the history books, and how that (somehow) is evidenced by what is written about the native americans. We're the winners, the books we're writing implicate us as being awful. So what did you mean to say?
Peter Kropotkin:
As a liberal/progressive, (although I prefer liberal) I have found everyone lies regardless
of their conservative/liberal stance. I don’t understand why you would hold liberals to task when
by political stance everyone lies. Let us begin there.
Uccisore: Politicians of all stripes lie, no denying that- conservative and liberal. My point isn’t that Marxists lie and others don’t. My point is that there is nothing in Marxist ethics/political thought that makes lying bad. It is the progressives you will find doing things like putting the word ‘truth’ in quotation marks, or saying reality is subjective, perception is reality, the winners write the history book, and so on. Not only do Marxists not value telling the truth, they roll their eyes at the notion that there is a difference between telling the truth and lying. These are all progressive mantras used to defend the notion of lying. If a conservative lies, he has violated his core principles. If a liberal lies, he has gotten caught, and the independents he was trying to manipulate might resent it, but the only thing he did against his principles is get caught. The idea of the left pushing towards a socialism that the masses are against through incremental steps they can’t argue with- that is deceitful, and it’s the entire premise. Everything flows from that, and it’s both increasing in frequency and filtering down to the little people- I’m not just talking about politicians and academics hiding their real motives. I’m talking about everyday people who happen to be leftists making arguments they know to be false because, tactically, they are the strategic arguments to make.
K: I didn’t get where you were going until I figured out your talking points are lifted straight from
Fox news. “Left pushing toward socialism” and my own personal favorite “if a conservative lies, he has violated
his core principles” A successful argument can be made that the conservatives no longer have principles.
The right only values money, they don’t even make a pretense any more.
They pay lip service, at best, to culture values. the bush jr. years show us that. They only used those who
value the culture values I.E abortion, right to life and used them for voting purposes.
Money is the end all, be all for conservatives. There is no other god.
Let us look to the left. “Pushing for socialism” first of all, we have to decide what that means.
Socialism, We are living in a socialist age already, that is according to the right and so how can we
be pushing for something we live in already? The difference between European socialism and American
socialism is degree’s. They have gone a little further then we have, that’s all. Whereas we have the same
programs they have, they have extended them a little further then we have. The left has stood for a improved
quality of life for all americans. From climate change to better living conditions to increase wages for women,
the working poor among others. We have stood for those who are disadvantage since World War Two and we
still stand for those ideals. The left is all about one thing and one thing only, that is we are making tomorrow
better then today. How do we do that? We believe that government is a means to improve our lives.
It is not the enemy that the right portrays it to be (see Nevada ranchers) WE believe in a stronger united
country where we support our government and it support us. If we reach for a utopia, that would be it.
A better country for all americans to live in and by extension a better world. That is the utopia we look to.
The American failure of late is not a failure of a so called turn to socialism because that has been here for
decades, Social Security, welfare, unemployment benefits, WIC programs and all the rest have been here for
decades.
NO, the failure of late is a failure of the right for they don’t stand for anything but money and they have been winning that war. The upper class has been at war with the middle class and the poor since Reagun. This is clear from
the massive and undeniable fact, FACT, from the increased income inequality that is the greatest (from some accounts) since the Roman Empire. The left has stood for improve income for the most in need and the right for
tax cuts, tax breaks, increased income for the wealthy. The right doesn’t stand for anything else. This has damaged
America beyond anything, ANYTHING Bin laden ever did to America. The right has damaged America worse then
al-quida, Hitler, mao, Stalin put together and all for the love of money, yep, they trashed the country for money.
You can’t get much lower than that.
Kropotkin
Right off the bat, trying to gain a tactical advantage by portraying me as an ignorant fanatic, by associating me (without evidence) with the media outlet that progressives have designated as being insulting to be associated with. This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. YOU invited ME to this conversation, and this is your opening statement?
This is why, every time I talk to a progressive, I gain a reason not to talk to progressives. You've just proven me right, because you do shit like THIS instead of engage in an honest conversation.
Do you even read this stuff before you write it? You just answered your own question- how can we be pushing for something we 'live in already' (your words, not mine)? Because it's a matter of degree, obviously. As you say.
The rest of your post is a stump-speech like you’re running for a senate seat in Vermont or something. You don’t even sort of address one point I made. So, I’ll just ignore the stuff you said and repeat my unanswered point:
There is nothing in Marxism, or any system that stems from Marxism, that favors the truth over lies if lies will accomplish the mission. This is evident in both a critical reading of Marx, Marcuse, Foucault, Alinski, and so on, as well as in day to day statements and actions of politicians, academics, and the liberal hoi polloi. So for example, you decided the most tactically advantageous move was to play at a cursory look at my points, then to discredit me and go on to stump-speech for liberalism. As a consequence of your preference for tactics even when there’s nothing to be gained, no philosophy happened here today.
That is why the progressive approach to truth and rhetoric is problematic.
The problem is you are making an association that the left is always Marxist.
The left and Marxist are two different things, I am talking left, not Marxist because
I don’t even know any Marxist and yes, I know the difference even if you don’t.
I have read marx and every single person you mentioned. What you are missing is simple,
you are taking political statements made by so called Marxist such as lenin and stalin and
making their statement which are only used to support their power grab and the left which has
another part altogether. the politicians lie, yes we get that but the average person on the left
is really pretty straight forward. You are creating statements and conversations that others
make to indict the average person on the left. If you want to discuss marx or whomever, let us
discuss them, if you want to discuss the left, let us. I am a liberal and I don’t know anyone outside
of me, who even knows the names you brought up. The left is less ideological driven then the right,
we are more problem driven. How do we feed the poor? How do you house the homeless? Why bring up
marx? How does that get the poor fed? It doesn’t. We don’t talk about the ideology, we talk about
what does it take to get the problems solved? I leave ideology to those on the right for they are and you
are, fixated on ideology. I don’t care what marx says about whatever, because it has no bearing on what
happens now. Marx is over 120 years dead. We don’t fixate on ideology as you do. That is the problem.
WE don’t care. You can continue to talk about liberals and Marxist but that exists in you head and not
in reality which is fox news in a nutshell. Not dealing with the facts but dealing with what is in your head which
has no relationship to reality. You (the right) has drifted into a fantasy world that doesn’t exist.
WE see a problem and we look for solutions, you see a problem and you see marx and socialism and
ideology. We look at the world very differently. There is a reason why people have said and correctly
“reality has a left wing bias” because we exist in the real world and you exist in some fantasy land.
Kropotkin
Where?
No. Marx, Foucalt, Marcuse, and posters here on these forums are my primary sources that I have brought up so far. You can’t cite a single instance of me quoting Lenin or Stalin and sticking it in the mouth of a modern leftist. You are continuing to make up stories about me because it serves a tactical end, when I can continuing to attempt to make a philosophical point. I will restate my point, as again you are refusing to interact with it:
Any Marxist belief, or belief that is relevantly similar to Marxism, shares the same problem- an ends-based ethic. They have a view of the future, and achieving that view is the ultimate good. Things that other people would consider evil, such as lying, manipulating data, denigrating opponents with pointless insults in the middle of a discussion and so on, are considered good by the progressive as long as they serve to ushering in the future that they are trying to progress towards. This is a problem, because when a non-progressive is engaged with a progressive, the progressive has absolutely no motivation to deal with them in an honest and rational manner, if a dishonest and irrational manner will serve their ends better.
Now, there are leftists that aren't Marxists- Catholic social justice leftists, for example, have something in their ethical background that compels honesty. But leftists like [i]those[/i] are not the majority. Marxist-leftists, and leftists that take their cues from them, are common enough that the problem I describe is a problem, even if every leftist doesn't suffer from it. Again and again[i] on these forums[/i], for example, progressives resort to tactics instead of discussion when tactics will accomplish their mission of making a conservative look back, or liberalism look good.
The average person on the left is straight forward insofar as they don’t know the lies they are repeating are lies. So, the average person on the left tells tales about the gender wage cap because they actually think their is one, not because they are liars trying to leverage an advantage. Nonetheless, they are taught that anybody who disputes this is a bigot who only watches Fox News, and that therefore they ought not question the lies they are taught, and so they perpetuate it in their own way. The average person on the left is one who is lied to, and believes it. It’s the academics, journalists and the activists that are the active liars. Sure, politicians too, but that so comes with the territory that I see no point in emphasizing it.
Are you an example of the average person on the left?
Anyway, my point is not about people but about the beliefs underlying ‘progressivism’, as I’ve already described in my first reply to you. You twisting my words into some battle between Fox News watching fanatics and ‘regular hard working folks’ or whatever bullshit debate tactic your attempting is irrelevant- I’m not trying to make people like me, I’m trying to explore a concept in political philosophy.
I am talking about the things I want to talk about already. To the extent that you manage to interact with the points I make, a discussion will occur. You continue to try politics with me, I continue to point it out and reiterate:
The modern left's ideology is dangerous to the degree it is informed by Marx, Foucalt, Marcuse, and Alinski because it has no inherent reason to tell the truth about anything, or deal in a fair, rational fashion with it's opponents. You could easily refute this point if there was a refutation to it. But you, as much as any leftist, are in the 'truth is what we make it' 'appearance is reality' camp. You have literally said as much here, and the way you discuss things demonstrates this. You're another bit of anecdotal evidence for my argument.
Now, because the left has no inherent reason to prefer the truth, it tends not to. The evidence of this is apparent to anybody who wants to look. It's starting to be apparent in this thread. I am still not interested in your podium speeches about the glory of the left. The only thing I saw in there relevant to the point I'm making is your insistence that the left is about a means/ends, problems/solutions approach to the world. This actually affirms what I'm saying- [i]that you shouldn't lie and misrepresent data[/i] can be seen as an ideological commitment. If lying, falsifying data, or dealing unfairly with somebody on a discussion board will best solve the problem the leftist is trying to solve, then that is what they will do- as you yourself have described.
I can agree with all of that except this one small part;
“Ends-based ethic” in itself is not the problem.
The problem is firstly exactly what that end is.
And secondly, how it is to be achieved (which is affected by what it is).
You may be right. I’m having a hard time of thinking ends-based ethic that wouldn’t, ultimately, lie cheat and kill to achieve that end if it was the only/best way, but I could be mistaken. In any event, the ends the left have in mind certainly don’t preclude intellectually dishonesty of all sorts to achieve them.
This may come as a shock Uccisore, I agree with this. Most people that are on the left, the “hoi polloi” leftists don’t know anything about what they preach. I get told I’m evil because I clam to be a Conservative all the time. Few of the people that do, can state the reasons why with any clarity. Usually it comes down to, “because you stand against gay marriage, because you are a homophob.” Or, “because you are a greedy bastard that only cares about money.” Or my favorite, “because you want women to only be in the kitchen, barefoot.” These are all straight forward people. Now, none of these things are true, not for me, not for Conservatives in general. It is one of the reasons I come to places like this, at least some of them understand their own side…
Homophob is the correct spelling for a person who is homophobic, right? The spell check is throwing it back at me… I keep saying it and thinking of a cross between a human and a pocket watch… Homophob…
Yes. This is, I believe, where “progressives” originally got their idea of progress from; although, many would be blind to this. It’s ironic that “progressives” are stringently anti-Christian when they share some similarities with them. The concept of linear time, the “fall”, and that we are progressing toward a peaceful culmination point comes straight from Christianity. The only difference is that they purge their position of other-worldly metaphysics. However, I am yet to converse with or hear a “progressive” justify these points; for them, they are self-evident.
This is true, but it’s a bit off topic. Although, “progressives” are usually anti-economic growth.
By equality of opportunity, I mean that there are no legal barriers in Western states forbidding women, gays, ethnic minorities, or whatever other minority group “progressives” fawn over, achieving what they want.
OK, so you see the problem as being that now progressives should no longer be trying to liberate gays, minorities etc. since they have equal opportunity. That it might have been good and progressive before this, but now that this has been achieved, they should stop trying to liberate these people’s since they are not in need of liberation. Are there progressives trying to liberate these groups nowadays?
Yeah, that's pretty much what I said to PK- the typical leftist is straightforward because they don't know the things they are saying are lies- they have been told that certain people are evil for crazy reasons, and they accept it. I do maintain, however, that[i] hoi polloi[/i] leftists are less likely to be intellectually curious, and less likely to be rewarded for that curiousity than similar conservatives. Some of the lies of the left are just to transparently false, or easy to unravel for it to be any other way.
I sat through a presentation once of a student who did a study on homophobes, finding correlations between homophobia and strong negative reactions to homosexual themed images and somesuch. As, I assume, the only conservative in the room, I asked him during the Q&A if the same comparisons/results couldn’t be made of anybody that didn’t like someone- like say, people who don’t like Republicans reacting negatively to pictures of Ronald Reagan or whatever. He agreed verbally, but it was such an atmosphere of ‘none of us could possibly disagree with the central thesis’ that my point ran over them like water on a duck’s back. That’s the liberal hoi polloi.
Anyway, my point here can be simply made: PK said that leftists are ideology-free, practical people who care only about solving problems. Fine. If such a people discover that the most efficient, reliable solution to some problem they are trying to overcome is to create a rigged scientific study and publish the results as proof of a thesis to sway public opinion, then isn’t that just what they’ll do?
I haven’t heard progressives, in the main, talking about some peaceful culmination point. It does seem like improving things is often how they couch their goals. Often it is the elimination of certain kinds of oppression, as they often term it. Sort of like, well, pretty much most groups in the US since its origins has these kinds of elimination of oppression goals. Conservatives, further, I mean all stripes, not simply Christian or other religious ones, seem to believe in progression towards some future improved state - and some of these also have a utopian edge. This seems a rather human and certainly US political goal - at least in everyone’s rhetoric - and not one held by any specific group. Last: do you think time is not linear? That everything just cycles around with nothing new under the sun?
This would be true of pretty much any consequentialist, and it seems to me conservative regimes and individuals have justified pretty much all possible means to ends. Even when their morals seem to incluce deontological injunctions - at least to my hermeneutics on their various scriptures and constitutions. I don’t think this is a specifically leftist trait. There might be some correlation with atheists but that’s and another way of slicing the pie.
I’m thinking the spelling is Homophobe… Homo-fob…
Wouldn’t you if you where working towards Utopia? If perfection was just over the horizon, if only these non-believers would get out of the way and stop naysaying, would you do what you had to against them? Science has its issues that allow for some flexibility, so it’s not quite lying, right?
I agree, the real problem is in the belief that anyone is ideology-free… Ideology is in many ways another word for wisdom, it is a collection of our experiences focused into future actions. To have someone claim they have no wisdom, no experience and to simultaneously claim they know what is coming and that it is the only place we can go, that we must work for it, that is a problem…
Well, I suppose the first question there would be 'what's a conservative'? Just anybody who disagrees with a Marxist? My experience in modern politics (and these forums) have been that when a conservative does something terrible, conservatives and liberals say "That's terrible." When a liberal does something terrible, the conservatives say "That's terrible" and the liberals say "Everybody does shit like that, that's politics for you". In other words, pointing out that the other side has violated a moral principle doesn't mean you have principles, it may just mean that pointing it out serves an end.
And besides, suppose I say I simply don't believe you that the right is just as bad as the left when it comes to this- and it's true, I don't. I don't think you can prove otherwise. I suspect your thought that both sides are equally guilty is rooted in a preference for equality as true-until-proven-false in general, right?
Atheism is certainly a part of it, but I don’t think it’s as big a part as you might. The connection I’m making is this - Marx getting the ball rolling by saying all that matters in the end is the material condition of the class you’re concerned with. Sartre and Derrida liberating Marxist discourse from a discourse of reality, since reality begins with the individual’s perception of it. Extend that forward through the pomo movement, etc. It’s getting harder and harder to find a leftist that will even admit to truth and falsehood as being concepts with real meaning, which is why so many atheists become libertarians these days- if an atheist wants anything, it’s to be able to definitively say somebody else is wrong. Say what you will about 3sum, but he seems to get that there is such a thing as true, such a thing as false, and the former is to be preferred to the latter. Meanwhile, if somebody can’t say ‘truth’ without putting it in quotes, that’s a leftist. If somebody uses the phrase ‘right for you’, that’s a leftist.
The word ‘Ideologue’ has always been used the way PK used it here. Napoleon came up with it. For the Bonapartist, an ideologue was somebody who’s abstract notions of right and wrong got in the way of Napoleon doing whatever he wanted. And whatever he wanted, was of course, to solve problems in a practical and sober way.