Discussion with intellectual opponents is something I have valued over time. Sometimes people are convinced that you are right, but not usually. Sometimes you can convince them that not everyone on your side of the issue is ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. That's a victory not to be sneezed at. But sometimes you really end up talking to a brick wall. John Loftus, for example, started out as someone that you could have a dialogue with, and then, under the influence of New Atheism, he ceased to be one. Sometimes coming up with a realization on both sides of the issue of exactly what your disagreement consists in is a major accomplishment, even if no one is persuaded.
I am pretty much a free speech guy when it comes to these discussions, and ban people only with the greatest reluctance. Others are, to be sure, more selective.
I remember one time reading a paper that someone had written about miracles for an undergrad philosophy journal. I wrote a detailed critique of it, and then forgot all about it. Years later I heard from the person, telling me how appreciative they were of my response and that they were no a Christian.
I do think that if you cut everyone on the other side off from your discussion you lose the opportunity to be told when you are misrepresenting the other side. That's the downside. You are also out of the business of trying to show people on the other side that you are right and they are not. For me, the downsides of doing this outweigh any upsides I can think of. But that's just me.
91 comments:
So do you value discussions with your intellectual opponents when they claim that you are a Nazi and you've voted for Hitler? Asking for a friend.
I do think that if you cut everyone on the other side off from your discussion you lose the opportunity to be told when you are misrepresenting the other side.
I find that many in a position to influence public opinion are intentionally misrepresenting the other side.
Kevin,
You're a good guy with a good heart. I also think you're the smartest person here.
That's a powerful combination. I'll bet if you were really interested in politcal science (Poli-Sci) and took a college course in Poli-Sci, you'd be repulsed. That's because you gather in all the info and try to make reasonable and virtuous decisions. You resist making commitments that are unresonable although they may be expedient as well as expedient actions that may seem to be reasonable.
With your disposition, and if you have the time and inclination you should read Aristotole's work on rhetoric and "The Prince" by Machiavelli.
Then you will better understand why politicians say the things they say.
I trust you will use that knowledge for good rather than evil.
You're a good guy with a good heart. I also think you're the smartest person here.
While I thank you for the compliment, people are going to think I hacked your account to make that comment.
I'll check out your recommendations.
I don't think anyone has been called a Nazi or even accused of voting for a Hitler. I accused Trump of failing to understand (perhaps) and failing to abide by the basic norms of our democracy. I think his character is bad, and I dislike him, but I can't imagine him ordering a Holocaust. There are what seem to be Hitler-like tendencies, or maybe just fascist tendencies.
Further, I can understand why people voted for him, especially as it concerns the Supreme Court.
But I did argue against the overuse of TDS as a defense of Trump against any and all criticism on the grounds that the same strategy could be on behalf of Hitler by charging people like Bonhoeffer with HDS. But that is far from saying that Trump is Hitler.
Victor,
I don't believe you can have a political policy discussion at all without bringing Trump (the most evilest, meanest, Hitlerest meany of all time) into it. When that irrelevancy is pointed out, leftists just double down and just shout louder that Trump is LITERALLY HITLER!
That looks deranged to people interested in constuctive policy discussions and the more the pattern repeats itself the more deranged it looks. If you want people to think you're not obssessed with Trump to the point you can't talk about anything else, then the fix is easy. Just refuse to talk about Trump. Can't do that? Then you've earned the TDS label.
The same applies to going to Reductio ad Hitlerum. Trump talked mean. Hitler talked mean. Egads! Trump is Hitler. And I'm Bonhoeffer because I'm using a tired, worn out, universally ridiculed fallacy and people point that out.
Now instead of just letting it go or admitting that it was a mistake to exaggerate like this (because it's OK to punch a Nazi) you just triple down.
It won't do to claim you think that Trump has 1 or 2 Hitler-like tendencies and that is unrelated to your intent to persuade people to dislike Trump. You've implied that Trump is Hitler. Those that support him are like those who supported Hitler. And you are poor Bonhoeffer suffering in prison for trying to tell everyone how dangerous Hitler is.
What should the good people in Germany have done to stop Hitler? How far should they have gone? We have people in America justifying their violence by this type of thinking and you're not only not denouncing the violence and the thought process, you're pouring more fuel on the fire.
While I thank you for the compliment, people are going to think I hacked your account to make that comment.
No way they could think that. I'm way better looking.
I think the classic book How to Win Friends and Influence People is a pretty good guide on how to interact with and even change people. I took notes on it and you can read them here instead of the entire book if you like.
I read the book too.
If I remember right, there is an entire chapter on how it's a good idea to imply that your perspective friend is a Nazi sympathizer. If he doesn't change his mind out of shame, then your other friends can beat him up to change his mind.
Works every time.
bmiller,
So do you value discussions with your intellectual opponents when they claim that you are a Nazi and you've voted for Hitler? Asking for a friend.
You keep brining this up. In the thread from the prior post, I went through all the "Nazi" references, and no one called you a Nazi sympathizer. Do you have some sort of persecution complex?
bmiller,
> there is an entire chapter on how it's a good idea to imply that your perspective friend is a Nazi sympathizer.
But no one called you a Nazi sympathizer. The only thing I did was to "street diagnose" Trump as a malignant narcissist, and then gave examples of other malignant narcissists to show what horrible people they are.
True, any type of Hitler comparison is pretty much automatically cliche. Trump and his supporters do not want to gas Mexicans.
But their absolute spittle-flecked hatred of Democrats, and moreover their scapegoating of Democrats for EVERY perceived problem, is like the water that the frog is in being 75 degrees.
Guess I got that impression from these remarks. I took that to mean that although Trump supporters weren't ready to go full Nazi now, it was just a matter of time.
Used to be that Godwin's Law ended a discussion and everyone knew who the loser was. We still do. But leftists here are under the impression that arguments actually start with Godwin's Law.
There was a reported exchange between Trump and John Kelly in which Trump said "Hitler did a lot of good things." Kelly said "You must never ever say anything complimentary about Hitler.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/06/donald-trump-hitler-michael-bender-book
Hahaha!
Can't stop can you Victor. Your picture should be on the Wikipedia "Godwin's Law" page.
"Godwin's Law" is not appropriate/useful/valid when the comparison is accurate.
Everyone but you already admitted the comparison wasn't accurate.
But you don't care if what you say is true or not.
Anyone who still believes in the Big Lie (that our former president supposedly won the election) has no business telling anyone else what is or is not true. They have lost all credibility on that front.
You've proven my point.
You don't care if what you say is true or not.
Sez the person who enthusiastically supports the biggest lie of our lifetimes.
bmiller,
>I took that to mean that although Trump supporters weren't ready to go full Nazi now, it was just a matter of time.
Are Nazis the only ones capable of genocide? I don't think so. The point is that the beginnings of genocidal activity always starts with scapegoating a specific group for all of societies problems. When I see commenters on Facebook, including my own family, they ALL think everything is terrible and it's all the "demonrats" fault. Gas prices are surging because of demonrats. The economy is terrible because of demonrats. The vaccine is a being pushed by demonrats. They hate hate hate demonrats, and its at a level I don't remember seeing before.
Martin,
Thank you for pulling back from calling Republican voters Nazi fascists. It seems now that you realize the Nazis were socialists and you favor socialism you'll just call them genocidal maniacs.
So I have a couple questions:
1) What makes it OK for you to tell us that Republicans are genocidal maniacs but not OK for some Republicans to call Democrats "demonrats"?
2) Isn't genocide the killing of an ethnic or national group?
3) If you think political violence is wrong, then why haven't you, or any of the leftists denounced the violence from the leftists that started last year and continues on today?
I'm not on Facebook, but I've heard the same complaints from conservatives going the other way. My advice is to get off Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Social media doesn't bring out the best in people and I suspect there's a lot of people that enjoy that.
BTW. It is all the demonrats fault ;-)
I haven't used Facebook in years, but the progressive friends I had on there blamed Republicans (or Christians) for literally everything. Not a bad thing to say about a Democrat. Always the Republicans.
Democrats in office blame Republicans for everything. Been doing it since George W. Bush at the very least, when it became a meme to blame Bush.
Blaming the other side is neither new nor exclusive to Martin's Facebook friends on the right.
Well, I certainly do not belong to any group that consistently blames one party over the other. I've long been proud of the fact that I am the only person I know who voted for both Barry Goldwater and George McGovern. Several Republicans are amongst my favorite presidents (for instance Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, Coolidge, and Eisenhower). The current Republican governor of my state (Maryland) is a decent and competent guy. I may disagree with him on a few issues, but no one agrees with me on everything.
As for the Democrats, I was horrified by Clinton straight up lying to the American public about his affair with Lewinsky, I thought Jimmy Carter was a textbook example of the "Peter Principle" (where a person gets promoted beyond his level of competence), and was deeply disappointed by Obama's embrace of drone warfare.
So I do not believe I can be fairly accused of thinking that one "side" in politics is all good and the other side all bad.
I never said Republicans were genocidal. The Holocaust is not the only thing Hitler did. But the evidence is incontrovertible that Trump was willing to blow up our democratic system rather than yield power.
Here is what bothers me. A Republican of an earlier era would have said "Sure, I hate those Democrat policies. They're soft on communism and tax and spend way too much. But I would rather them take over than get the policies I want through a fascist dictatorship."
A Democrat of an earlier era would say "Sure. Those Republicans, they get us into wars, they tear apart safety nets that protect people, but better them in office than have our country taken over by the Commies."
Now? I saw a cartoon which portrayed Biden as a greater threat to America than Putin, who has been trying to destroy democracies in America and Europe.
Let's ask this question. Take abortion as an example. Would you be willing to allow a right-wing dictatorship if that was the only way to outlaw abortion?
"Would you be willing to allow a right-wing dictatorship if that was the only way to outlaw abortion?"
Oh, now you've done it, Victor. You've blown up the internet!
Need an equivalent test for Leftists. Maybe Medicare for all.
So I do not believe I can be fairly accused of thinking that one "side" in politics is all good and the other side all bad.
Sorry, was replying to Martin and his Facebook experiences.
Starhopper,
My daughter is getting interested in astronomy and stargazing. You seem to be somewhat of an enthusiast. Where is a good place I could ask you some questions for beginners? Your blog?
Also to avoid accusations of going off topic, here is a complimentary insult of a political nature. [Insert insult here.]
My blog (which I haven't posted to for several months now) is https://theobserverschair.blogspot.com
You can ask whatever questions you want there. Maybe I'll even be inspired to resume posting. That would be a good thing.
You should check to see if there are any astronomy clubs in your locale. That is the best source for "beginner" info, to include what to buy and what not to. Less is better when you're first starting out. I myself wasted hundreds of dollars on stuff I never really needed because I didn't know better.
Victor,
I was replying to Martin when he mentioned Republicans were genocidal maniacs.
It's your TDS that is making you see incontrovertible evidence of anything.
Now? I saw a cartoon which portrayed Biden as a greater threat to America than Putin,
You bring this up while you've been linking Trump to Hitler? It seems someone is playing by your rules. Why complain?
Regarding abortion.
First all American conservatives are against centralization of power, so if a dictator came to power it would be over the objections of American conservatives. Hitler is called a right-wing dictator only in the sense of the European political spectrum all of which embrace socialism while Stalin is called a left-wing dictator in the same sense. Both were socialist dictators and American conservatives oppose both left and right wings of socialism. To say "right-wing dictatorship" and mean "American conservative dictatorship" would be a contradition in terms like a square circle.
Second, I don't know how I can "allow" a socialist dictatorship. Last I checked dictators don't ask permission.
Since I can't vote for or against a socialist dictator maybe your question is "would I prefer the socialist dictator that governs over me to outlaw abortions all other things being equal?". In that case the answer is yes. If I had to live under a socialist dictator, I would prefer that he wouldn't allow the intentional killing of innocent human beings.
Kevin,
Shameless self promotion here, but I do hope that if you check out my blog, you might read several of my postings. I feel that they represent my best writing, and reveal who I really am - much more than this mud pit shouting match that characterizes too much of the conversation on Dangerous Idea. I have poured out my heart and soul into these blog postings.
Hitler was not a socialist. In the early days of Nazism there were leftists, the Strasser brothers, who were socialists, but Hitler later aligned with German industrialists who supported him and became thoroughly pro-capitalist when he was in power.
Yes, Hitler was socialist.
“The nationalization of big industry was never attempted after the Nazis came to power. But this was by no means a ‘betrayal’ of their program, as has been alleged by some of their opponents. The socialization of the entire German productive machinery, both agricultural and industrial, was achieved by methods other than expropriation, to a much larger extent and on an immeasurably more comprehensive scale than the authors of the party program in 1920 probably ever imagined. In fact, not only the big trusts were gradually but rapidly subjected to government control in Germany, but so was every sort of economic activity, leaving not much more than the title of private ownership.” (pp. 232-233; 239-240)
I mean come on.
Hitler's picture is under the title Totalitarianism. Can't be a totalitarian without ultimately controlling the means of production.
As a political ideology, totalitarianism is distinctly modern and has complex historical roots. Historian and philosopher Karl Popper traced its roots to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's conception of state and especially to the political philosophy of Karl Marx.[4] Others, like Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer, trace the origin of totalitarian doctrines to the Enlightenment, and especially to idea that man 'has become the master of the world', a master unbound by any links to nature, society, and history'.[5] In the twentieth century the idea of 'absolute state power', was developed by Italian fascists and concurrently in Germany, by jurist and later Nazi academic Carl Schmitt working during the Weimar Republic (1920s). Italian Fascist Benito Mussolini proclaimed: "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
People for the dentralization of power are the natural enemy of these socialist types.
If you need to banish private enterprise to be a socialist, Hitler was not one.
Companies privatized by the Nazis included the four major commercial banks in Germany, which had all come under public ownership during the prior years: Commerz– und Privatbank, Deutsche Bank und Disconto-Gesellschaft, Golddiskontbank and Dresdner Bank.[46][42] Also privatized were the Deutsche Reichsbahn (German Railways), at the time the largest single public enterprise in the world, the Vereinigte Stahlwerke A.G. (United Steelworks), the second largest joint-stock company in Germany (the largest was IG Farben) and Vereinigte Oberschlesische Hüttenwerke AG, a company controlling all of the metal production in the Upper Silesian coal and steel industry. The government also sold a number of shipbuilding companies, and enhanced private utilities at the expense of municipally owned utilities companies.[47] Additionally, the Nazis privatized some public services which had been previously provided by the government, especially social and labor-related services, and these were mainly taken over by organizations affiliated with the Nazi Party that could be trusted to apply Nazi racial policies.[48]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany
Also see this.
http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
Also, Trump isn't much of a conservative, in the Hayekian sense. This is what a conservative sounds like:
“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.”
This is what Trump sounded like:
"I alone can fix it." (If you give me the reins of government). Trump is the Republican party's final admission that they only believe in limited government when Democrats are in power.
Republicans have the weird idea that it isn't socialism if you use government to help out big companies and hope it trickles down. It's only socialism if you give it to working people.
They also like to use a narrow definition of socialism when arguing that socialism is bad, so PragerU says that Western European democracies are not socialist, they are just capitalists with a strong safety net. But when Democrats want to expand the safety net, they forget their prior narrow definition and say "We can't do that. That's socialism."
https://theweek.com/articles/936534/trump-bigger-socialist-than-biden
If you need to banish private enterprise to be a socialist, Hitler was not one.
"Socialism of the Russian pattern" thought you had to do that. "Socialism of the German pattern" let the " Betriebsführer"(shop keepers) "own" things but told them exactly what to do making it private enterprise in name only.
“In Nazi Germany,” Mises tells us, the property owners “were called shop managers or Betriebsführer. The government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages labourers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham. As all prices, wages and interest rates are fixed by the authority, they are prices, wages and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the authoritarian orders determining each citizen’s income, consumption and standard of living. The authority, not the consumers, directs production. The central board of production management is supreme; all citizens are nothing else but civil servants. This is socialism with the outward appearance of capitalism. Some labels of the capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify here something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy.”
What I find most hilarious about this "was Hitler a socialist?" debate is that bmiller cries "Godwin's Law!" whenever anyone points out the demonstrable parallels between our former president and Der Fuhrer, but then goes right around and, by tarring socialism with a Hitlerian brush, does the very same thing!
bmiller, I call Godwin's Law on you!
Victor,
First you want to say that Trump is Hitler and his supporters are fascists. I've pointed out that American conservatives oppose fascism because it is a form of socialism.
Now it seems you want to say Trump is Hitler because he is actually a socialist like you that desires to centralize power. If you're concerned that whoever holds the "reins of government" is a de facto dictator, then you should support decentralization of that governmental power. You may claim that Trump is a danger because he says "he alone can fix it", but if he works to diminish the power of the central government, then he actually is fixing it.
Classical liberalism starts with the promotion of minimal governmental interference in people's economic affairs believing that individuals know their own situation better than some bureaucrat thousands of miles away. The UK recently voted themselves out of the EU for precisely this reason.
It also believes that open markets and fair competition promote prosperity more than centralization. Thus the principle of subsidiarity "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”
America's founding governmental conception was based on these principles and was set up to prevent centralization of governmental power as much as possible with the Constitution limiting the central government to only those powers allowed to it by the Constitution. All other powers remaining with the states or the people. The central government furthermore had it's power split with checks and balances among the 3 branches.
Democrats should stop claiming they are afraid of a dictatorship out of one side of their mouth and then threaten to eliminate safeguards that were set up to prevent a dicatorship.
Link to the Von Mises summary above.
It's a good short history of early European socialist thought and various divisions. There were so many variations of what socialism was supposed to be about that groups had to claim a distinction by branding a particular word as theirs.
But the Soviets themselves also played a part in the crafting of the myth of the Nazi capitalist. The Nazis were not trying to hide their socialism (after all, snarky tweets aside, socialism was in the name); they were just implementing socialism according to a different strategy than that of the Marxist socialists.
The Soviets were able to brand the Nazis as capitalists only because they had already started redefining the terms “socialism” and “communism” to fit their own political agenda. In 1912, Lenin formed his Communist Party. The members of his party, the Bolsheviks, were now distinct from the other, rival groups of socialists. The terms “communism” and “socialism” were still able to be used interchangeably, and the Soviet Union itself was just a shorthand name for the “United Soviet Socialist Republics.” But by branding his group under the title of the “Communist Party,” the title “Communist” — now meaning a member of Lenin’s party — became a way of saying that this was a “true socialist,” so to speak.
bmiller,
I promise to not longer try to reason with you about fascism and socialism. It's quite clear you have some sort of need to believe they are the same, so you won't bereasoned out of that position.
His reason is so that he can blame all the ills of the world on those danged "leftists", all the while imagining himself to be a spotless champion for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. It's so easy to point the finger elsewhere, whilst excusing one's self. If I remember correctly, Our Lord had something to say about such behavior.
It's also a convenient dodge in any discussion. Just label anything you disagree as "leftist" and voila! There's no need to actually debate the issue.
Aargh! That should have read "you disagree with".
I suppose I shouldn't have assumed that people actually read the article I linked to. When I wrote of “socialism of the German pattern” and “socialism of the Russian pattern” I was referring to this explanation:
In Germany, the first purveyors of “State socialism” emerged shortly prior to Marx. Johann Karl Rodbertus, like Marx, rejected many of the existing socialist theories as untenable. Rodbertus was the first socialist thinker to advocate the control of both production and distribution, and to achieve this, the socialist must use the State. The greatest expositor of his ideas was Ferdinand Lassalle, whose proselytizing led to the rapid growth in popularity of what Mises would call “socialism of the German pattern.”
German socialism, as Mises defines it, differs from what he called “socialism of the Russian pattern” in that “it, seemingly and nominally, maintains private ownership of the means of production, entrepreneurship, and market exchange.” However, this is only a superficial system of private ownership because through a complete system of economic intervention and control, the entrepreneurial function of the property owners is completely controlled by the State. By this, Mises means that shop owners do not speculate about future events for the purpose of allocating resources in the pursuit of profits. Just like in the Soviet Union, this entrepreneurial speculation and resource allocation is done by a single entity, the State, and economic calculation is thus impossible.
bmiller,
I suppose I shouldn't have assumed that people actually read the article I linked to.
The von Mises article that pretends any system that is not capitalism defaults to socialism? That's completely unimpressive.
Under Nazi fascism, business owners kept their profits. Under socialism, the profits supposedly belong the the government/community.
Hitler meets German Workers' Party
Corporal Adolf Hitler was ordered in September 1919 to investigate a small group in Munich known as the German Workers' Party....
After Hitler's outburst ended, Drexler hurried over to Hitler and gave him a forty-page pamphlet entitled: "My Political Awakening." He urged Hitler to read it and also invited Hitler to come back again.
Early the next morning, sitting in his cot in the barracks of the 2nd Infantry Regiment watching the mice eat bread crumbs he left for them on the floor, Hitler remembered the pamphlet and read it. He was delighted to find the pamphlet, written by Drexler, reflected political thinking much like his own – building a strong nationalist, pro-military, anti-Semitic party made up of working class people.
My Political Awakening.
Page 50 and 51 gets the gist of it I think.
Drexler saw the Marxists as false socialists because they are led by the internationalist Jews (who are secretly capitalists that want the peoples of all nations to serve as their slaves). The German Workers Party, soon to be the National Socialist German Workers Party, were the "true" socialists.
So, is a right-wing dictator a contradiction in terms?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_dictatorship
No one made that claim.
bmiller,
Under Nazi fascism, business owners kept their profits. Under socialism, the profits supposedly belong the the government/community.
Do you have no response at all to this simple distinction? Is your rhetoric really that empty?
So Bill Vallicella posts another response to Victor, and of course since he kicked him out, Victor is unable to respond. It seems strange to me for a former philosopher to not allow dialogue. Is that what Socrates would do?
Here's what he posts:
"Build a 20 foot wall, and they'll show up with a 21 foot ladder." Geraldo Rivera has said things like that. "They'll tunnel under it," said Victor Reppert when I pointed out that an enforceable and enforced physical barrier is necessary but not sufficient for border control. The defeatist attitude of these gentlemen betrays an unwillingness to uphold the rule of law, and with it a failure to appreciate how precious the rule of law is. And then Reppert committed an IGNORATIO ELENCHI when he replied to me that a wall won't stop 'em all, as if anyone ever claimed that it would. You would think a philosophy Ph.D. would not sink to such a rookie blunder. If Reppert's wife complained about ants entering their house, would he say, "You can't stop 'em all, dear" and go back to reading C. S. Lewis? Presumably not.
Victor can respond here.
Why so many dictators in Latin America?
Auguste Comte’s Positivism.
TLDR
Latin American intellectuals broadly favored Comte's Positivism. It rejected the idea of natural rights as just a metaphysical phase society was to evolve through on the way to the final positive stage of society ruled by scientism (which included of course materialism and Social Darwinism). Of course this means that ordinary people cannot govern themselves and had to be governed by the elite intellectuals. This fit well with the Latin American "strong man" thesis.
Auguste Comte’s ordering of history into three periods—the theological, metaphysical and positive—seemed to fit well with the Latin American experience, and his theory of the third, positive stage seemed to many a promising path to progress at a time when Latin America was still struggling to define itself after independence from Spain and Portugal.
Despite these differences, essential components remain that characterize Positivism throughout the region. Comte envisioned a society based entirely on knowledge gained from the application of the scientific method. He regarded nature and society as a closed system with no transcendent ground. It was the responsibility of scientists to discover the laws of society, just as they discovered the laws of physics. This reductionist approach fit well with theories of ethnic and social determinism. He also favored an elitist and authoritarian social order and dismissed natural rights as both methodologically unjustified and a hindrance to the social order. He called for a society firmly managed by scientists and sociologists.
Comte’s vision of a positivist society appealed to Latin American intellectuals for a number of reasons. It was anticlerical at a time when Catholicism was seen as an impediment to progress, and it was authoritarian at a time when enlightenment ideals of democracy and individual rights seemed romantic and impractical. Positivism promoted utilitarianism, science (or scientism), an emphasis on material progress and Social Darwinism. This made sense to those who desired to compete economically with the United States and Europe and wanted ideological justification for the persecution of indigenous and mestizo groups, who were also regarded as impediments to progress.
Nice try, bmiller, but I seriously doubt that any of the many Latin American dictators/strongmen could tell you who Auguste Comte was if you put a gun to their heads. Neither could they converse intelligently about Positivism, scientism, or social Darwinism. They had no time (or any respect) for such intellectual pursuits. Like our recent disgraced president, all they cared about was power, staying in power, and lining their pockets. That's it. No fancy philosophies required.
What a racist statement.
Probably think Simon Bolivar is famous for starting that watch company too.
"What a racist statement."
Only if dictators/strongmen are a race.
Racist or not (depending on whether you would say the same about European dictators), it's certainly false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_state_educated_in_the_United_States
I see some American dictators in there with advanced degrees.
Of course, there is no sign at all that anyone in this small group was influenced by Comte. That's just pure fiction.
Only if dictators/strongmen are a race.
Doesn't look like that to me:
I seriously doubt that any of the many LATIN AMERICAN dictators/strongmen could tell you who Auguste Comte was if you put a gun to their heads. Neither could they converse intelligently about Positivism, scientism, or social Darwinism.
Xi Jinping is not LATIN AMERICAN. Is he stupid and uneducated?
Stalin was not LATIN AMERICAN:
At Tiflis, Stalin was again an academically successful pupil, gaining high grades in his subjects.[48] Among the subjects taught at the seminary were Russian literature; secular history; mathematics; Latin; Greek; Church Slavonic singing; Georgian Imeretian singing; and Holy Scripture.
Pol Pot was not LATIN AMERICAN:
Born to a prosperous farmer in Prek Sbauv, French Cambodia, Pol Pot was educated at some of Cambodia's most elite schools. While in Paris during the 1940s, he joined the French Communist Party. Returning to Cambodia in 1953, he involved himself in the Marxist–Leninist Khmer Việt Minh organisation and its guerrilla war against King Norodom Sihanouk's newly independent government.
Mao was not LATIN AMERICAN:
According to Harrison Salisbury (who wrote The Long March: The Untold Story) “not one of Mao’s colleagues on the Long March possessed the diversity and breadth of his intellect.”
In the last ten years of his life his study, where he received visitors, was stacked floor to ceiling with ancient Chinese texts.
Robert Mugabe was not LATIN AMERICAN:
Mugabe embraced Marxism and joined African nationalists calling for an independent state controlled by the black majority.
In case you think you’re the most learned character in the 22nd century, take a look of the number of genuine degrees Mugabe holds and get humbled.
ACADEMIC DEGREES:
Bachelor of Arts (History and English) (BA) degree from the University of Fort Hare (1951)
Bachelor of Administration (B.Admin) from University of South Africa (Unisa)
Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) from the University of South Africa (Unisa)
Bachelor of Science (BSc.) in Economics from University of London (External Programme)
Bachelor of Laws (LLB) from University of London (External Programme)
Master of Laws (LL.M) from University of London (External Programme)
Master of Science (MSc.) in Economics from University of London (External Programme)
FDR was not LATIN AMERICAN:
Like most of his Groton classmates, Roosevelt went to Harvard College.[19] Roosevelt was an average student academically,[20] and he later declared, "I took economics courses in college for four years, and everything I was taught was wrong."[21] He was a member of the Alpha Delta Phi fraternity[22] and the Fly Club,[23] and served as a school cheerleader.[24] Roosevelt was relatively undistinguished as a student or athlete, but he became editor-in-chief of The Harvard Crimson daily newspaper, a position that required great ambition, energy, and the ability to manage others.[25]
OK. Maybe HE never read about Comte.
"Why so many dictators in Latin America?"
What a racist statement.
It was you that made the conversation about Latin American dictators, not me. But if you wish to discuss Asian dictators (or European or African ones, for that matter), my comment still applies. All dictators/strongmen care about is power, remaining in power, and lining their pockets - and philosophies be damned.
It's not a matter of education, but of character.
Got it.
You think Latin Americans lack character.
And here I thought you did. After all, you're the one who brought them up.
Oh, and by the way, we ALL lack character. Read your Bible.
Especially leftists
Ya-a-a-a-w-n.
So old, so boring...
If posted seriously, so predictable (and revealing).
If intended to be humorous, don't quit your day job. You'll never make it in stand up.
How would you know?
Leftists also lack a sense of humor.
Not being a leftist, I wouldn't know anything about their sense of humor.
Leftists also lack sense....period.
Positivism promoted utilitarianism, science (or scientism), an emphasis on material progress and Social Darwinism.
One doesn't have to look too closely to see how positivism is akin to socialist theory. It shares with Marx anti-religion, utilitarianism, determinism of history, and so the evolution of society from a primitive state to utopia, and along with that Social part of Darwinsim....some individuals will just have to obey or suffer the consequences.
So of course both positivists and socialists are innately authoritarian.
Like with love and marriage, so like with socialism and authoritarianism you can't have one without the other.
Chapter VI shows what happened in Nazi Germany when the government declared what prices would be for certain things.
People found a way to circumvent the "government". People found a way.
I guess then, that that great American socialist President Nixon was emulating the Nazis when he instituted nationwide wage and price controls in 1971 (see below all the pictures).
I recall laughing at the time at how Nixon called his economic plan the "New Economic Policy", which was the label Lenin gave to his own policies in 1922 (Novaya Ehkonomicheskaya Politika).
Apropos of nothing in this conversation, I am currently reading Daniel Berrigan's commentary on Dante's Purgatorio, The Discipline of the Mountain, sadly out of print (but you can find it on used book sites, such as Abe Books). Fantastic, deeply moving, and painfully relevant to our present time. Highest recommendation.
The Vampire Economy was written before WW2 by a non-Austrian economist. He gathered info for the book from personal conversations and correspondence with people within the pre-war Nazi economy as well as his own experiences. So it's a first hand account of what it was like there.
A good, fairly short, read for people who are curious about the truth of how the Nazi's dealt with the economy. Not so much for those clinging to a "narrative".
bmiller,
Riemann does not say that the state claim the profits of the private businessmen. Therefore this was not socialism.
bmiller said...
Like with love and marriage, so like with socialism and authoritarianism you can't have one without the other.
Baird's article would mean we are already socialists. For example, we already prevent Oscar Mayer from selling wormy bacon. Do you want to go back to the days of unregulated food?
Of course, Vallicella misrepresents my position. I argue that since a wall is limited in its effectiveness, (as he admits) and because it is expensive, and because it involves forcing American citizens out of their homes to build the darn thing, and it harms the border environment, we could do the same job better with improved electronic surveillance.
Vallicella basically implies the following.
1. Either a wall, or open borders.
2. You reject a wall.
Therefore, you implicitly support open borders.
I most certainly do not. 1 is far from proven, and needs evidence. I think it's probably false. Even with a big clunky object in the way, you still have to apprehend these people trying to tunnel under or climb over. So, just spend your money on better electronic equipment. You won't be making so much of a show of border security. But you will get more actual border security this way. Which is why Obama successfully reduced illegal immigration while Trump, for all his noise, did not.
Honestly I think he stopped reading everything you wrote after you argued that a wall won't stop 100% of illegal border crossings. He claimed that you misrepresented his position by doing so.
forcing American citizens out of their homes to build the darn thing
I'm curious. How many people built their homes directly on the Mexico/American border such that a wall would force them out?
Even with a big clunky object in the way, you still have to apprehend these people trying to tunnel under or climb over.
"The Wall" also has electronic security as part of the solution and I suspect it's easier to detect and round up people digging a tunnel or funneling through it than a speeding caravan of pickup trucks. The "smart wall" proposes to surveil people crossing the border for 100 miles inland. So they would be in Tucson blending in with the crowd before anyone would react.
I'm also curious why a wall is "making so much of a show of border security" and why would it bother a serious person. Unless of course TDS.
Building a border wall didn't used to be a partisan issue. Congress passed the bi-partisan "Secure Fence Act of 2006" and saw both Bush and Obama implement it.
“About 119 miles of barriers were in place before 2005, according to the Government Accountability Office. Work ramped up significantly during the George W. Bush administration, particularly around El Paso, Texas. Over the next 10 years, stretching into the Obama administration, the barriers were extended to cover 654 miles in areas including Tucson, Ariz., the Rio Grande Valley and the San Diego vicinity.”
U.S. Customs and Border Protection spent $2.3 billion on fencing at U.S.-Mexico border from fiscal years 2007 through 2015, notes a 2018 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the federal government’s watchdog agency. Of the 654 miles of barrier that line the U.S. border with Mexico, 300 are vehicle barriers and the rest are designed to keep pedestrians out. The border stretches 1,954 miles and runs through four states — California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
The Democrats made funding available for fencing in 2019. Trump said it wasn't good enough, he needed a wall, not just a fence.
Also see this.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/apr/23/mick-mulvaney/fact-check-did-top-democrats-vote-border-wall-2006/
But the REAL issue between me and people like BV is this. I think that most of who or what that tries to come over the border is benign, consisting mostly of people looking for a better life in much the way our ancestors did. Due to our prohibitive requirements for LEGAL immigration, people end up trying to come into the country illegally, and sometimes succeed and for the most part become law-abiding citizens. I have been a sub in public schools and have taught a lot of their kids. They weren't on their best behavior for me, but they are not bad kids, and they are certainly not murderers and rapists. Their undocumented parents work for a living. They should have had the opportunity to come here legally. We would need a lot less border security if we turned the ports of entry on the Southern border into little Ellis Islands instead of trying to build the Great Wall of China down there. Think about asylum seekers. They're trying to come here LEGALLY. Yeah, we would become a majority-minority country sooner, but so what? Yeah, they might need public assistance sometimes, because we let people work in America, in many cases, without paying them a living wage. This is NOT an open borders position because there still criminals, and drugs, and weapons that we need to keep out, and we would still need border security to keep those people and things out. But I think we can go a long way toward fixing illegal immigration by creating more fairness in the area of legal immigration. "Give me your tired, your poor," shouldn't just be pretty words on a statue. It's still good public policy.
But the REAL issue between me and people like BV is this.
Then it seems to me that BV was pretty much right about your intentions. I'm pretty sure the REAL "open borders" people would want to keep out criminals, drugs and weapons (aside from the "open borders" people profitting from those things). So I see no real difference between your position and theirs. It was never about a "wall" vs a "smart wall" at all.
The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution reads in part:
No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
This means that our former president, who is even today actively attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election, which he lost decisively to Joe Biden, ought to be declared ineligible to run for president (or any other public office) in 2024, since he is engaged in rebellion against the legitimately elected government of the United States. The same goes for all the members of Congress who continue to support the Big Lie that the election was somehow "stolen".
There is a fascinating article in this month's issue of America magazine (a Jesuit publication), "A Fascist Century", which argues that all of the totalitarian regimes of the last century, to include Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union, were not socialist but fascist in ideology and in practice. In fact, those two regimes in particular were murderously hostile to socialism. The very first prisoners in both Nazi concentration camps and in the Gulag were socialist party members and labor leaders.
No true Scotsman...er...I mean Socialist.
The same goes for all the members of Congress who continue to support the Big Lie that the election was somehow "stolen".
If claiming an election was stolen disqualified someone from running, it would invalidate most politicians of both parties.
Therefore I heartily agree with you.
Post a Comment