Search This Blog

Sunday, March 08, 2015

Applying the lesson

In the comments to a recent post, Hey Skipper stated the following:

I could swear I've brought this up a couple times already: Left & Right are useless terms; instead we should use Collectivist & Individualist.

Old habits die hard.  In an attempt to change those habits, I thought it would be worth trying to apply this idea to a post by John Jay on one of his blogs:

Leftists Collectivists don't understand much 
Leftists Collectivists are people who know and understand a lot less than they think they do.  The classical example of that is of course in economics.  Even when they gained unfettered control of such vast countries as Russia and China, they made a hash of it.
 
At the time of the 1917 revolution, Russia was a rapidly modernizing country with railways snaking out across the land and a flourishing agricultural sector that made it a major wheat exporter.  After the revolution agricultural production dropped by about one third and right through the Soviet era Russia never managed to feed itself.  Europe's subsidized food surpluses were a Godsend to it.  A lot of those food surpluses went East. 
And in China, Mao's Great Leap Forward was an unmitigated disaster that achieved nothing but millions of deaths from starvation.  An understanding of economics as poor as Communist economics could hardly be a better proof that Leftists Collectivists are people who know and understand a lot less than they think they do. 
And what libertarian said this? “The bureaucracy is a parasite on the body of society, a parasite which ‘chokes’ all its vital pores…The state is a parasitic organism”. It was V.I. Lenin, in August 1917, before he set up his own vastly bureaucratic state.  He could see the problem but was quite incapable of solving it. 
And Leftists Collectivists understand people so badly that they judge everyone by themselves  (projection) -- leading to the generalization that to understand what is true of Leftists Collectivists you just have to see what they say about conservatives.  That is even true of Leftist Collectivist psychologists (i.e. around 95% of psychologists).
 
For example, a book by Leftist Collectivist psychologists called "The Authoritarian personality" (under the lead authorship of a prominent Marxist theoretician) was a huge hit among psychologists in the '50s and '60s and is still well-spoken of among them to this day.  The basic theme of the book was that conservatives are authoritarian.  What a towering example of projection!  It was written while the vastly authoritarian regimes in Russia and China were still extant and just after another hugely authoritarian socialist regime had collapsed, Hitler's.  Yet it was conservatives who were supposed to be authoritarian? 
The fact of the matter is that Leftism Collectivism is fundamentally authoritarian. Whether by revolution or by legislation, Leftists Collectivists aim to change what people can and must do. When in 2008 Obama said that he wanted to "fundamentally transform" America, he was not talking about America's geography or topography but rather about American people. He wanted them to stop doing things that they wanted to do and make them do things that they did not want to do. Can you get a better definition of authoritarianism than that? 
And remember Obama's 2008 diagnosis of the Midwest:
 
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. 
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." 
That Midwesterners could be sincere Christians who need guns for self defence and hunting clearly did not figure in Obama's understanding of the Midwest -- and the remarks have become a byword for Leftist Collectivist incomprehension. To this day conservatives often sarcastically refer to themselves as "bitter clingers". As all the surveys show, conservatives tend to be happy people, not "bitter".  The uproar caused by  his uncomprehending remarks led Obama himself to backpedal. 
And the stock Leftist Collectivist explanation for all social ills --   It's due to poverty -- got really hilarious in the aftermath of the 9/11/2001 attacks on America by Osama bin Laden and his followers.  Leftists Collectivists insisted that bin Laden's hatred was also due to poverty.  It took some months before they could get it into their brains that bin Laden was actually a billionaire 
Leftism Collectivism is the politics of rage.  They see things about them that seem wrong to them but rather than seek to understand why that state of affairs prevails, they simply condemn it and propose the first  simplistic solution to the problem that comes into their heads -- usually some version of "MAKE people behave better".  They are incurious and impatient people and the destruction they can cause as a result is huge.
 
German philosopher Leibniz proposed many years ago that we live in "the best of all possible worlds" as a way of drawing attention to the fact that some good things necessarily have bad effects as well.  So stomping on the bad things will also destroy good things.  The whole of Leftism Collectivism is an example of that in action. To improve the world you first have to understand it.  Leftists Collectivists don't.
That's not a bad start, but it might take some more practice.

My youngest is home on break.  He was looking over my shoulder as I prepared this post.  His comment was, "that's a very opinionated piece."  I replied, "yes, but it's not wrong."  He agreed.

231 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 231 of 231
Anonymous said...

We could look at Wikipedia for their definition and see it share much of that with free markets.

I would also note that Eagar is a frequently purveyor of the equivalence of free markets and capitalism, since when I promote free markets he frequently responds with the evil of capitalism, which requires a rough equivalence to make sense. But I'm happy to adapt - I will simply ignore all future comments by Eagar on "capitalism" even if it appears to be a direct reply to me since it you have made it clear it isn't.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Eagar;

I have a question for Guy. Who are the economic historians (not theorists) who have assumed that capitalism includes 'free markets' without saying?

I'll answer that when you provide a quote of my statement about "economic historians".

Harry Eagar said...

That would be because most of the evils in capitalism derive from unrestrained capitalists. Capital allocation occurs even in socialist countries.

And you did not say 'economic historians,' I did. That is because I am in the reality-based community. I don't care what the theorists think, just as I do not care what it says in the New Testament but I do care about what,say, Baptists do.

Hey Skipper said...

[Harry:] I had planned to adduce three examples of collectives that probably occupy different points on the bad/good spectrum: B'nai Brith, the National Association of Manufacturers and the KKK.

Why, to prove you have no idea what you are talking about?

The kind of collectivism we are talking about is the overweening kind with which you are so enthralled, the kind that impoverishes nations and kills millions.

Of course it is true, in the most trivial way possible, that we involve -- voluntarily -- ourselves in all kinds of collectives: religions, Boy Scout Troops, jobs, families, etc.

If you can't suss the difference between that kind of collectivism, and collectivist government, then you badly need to resume your research.

Hey Skipper said...

[Harry:] And I have a question for Guy. Who are the economic historians (not theorists) who have assumed that capitalism includes 'free markets' without saying?

I have a question for you: why should I care?

That's a serious question, by the way. You are trafficking in argument from authority. You haven't given me any reason to prefer unnamed economic historians' unexplained arguments over, say Martha Stewart.

Moreover, you go from there to one of the most bizarrely tendentious lines of reasoning I have ever seen, even from you.

You started by calling King Leopold, a king, after all, a capitalist. Why? Because you want to pick a unique instance, brand it capitalism, and then use it to tar capitalism in total. (Never mind that every source looked at, including your marxist friends, considered it colonialism.)

That's fine: if you want to tar capitalism in general with King Leopold in particular, then you have to go from the particular to the general.

Which you do not.

Of course capitalism does not, just like free markets do not (which you also cannot take on board), occupy a specifc slot on the spectrum.

The term "capitalism" is most often used as a handle for "free market capitalism". When speakers refer to other variations, say the crony capitalism of Solyndra, then they modify the root accordingly.

Your inability to think of any economists who cannot understand the importance of free markets to capitalism -- are there any free market economies that aren't capitalistic? -- is of no import to reality, but does rather suggest you need to remove your ideological blinders and get out more.



Hey Skipper said...

[Harry:] Just repeating that fascism is no different from communism doesn't make that so.

By your definition, The DPRK. North Vietnam. Chavismo. Albania. Romania. The PRC. And the Soviet Union are all fascist.

Unless you can explain otherwise. Use charts and diagrams as required. Do not spare specifics or citations.

And, for the love of God, do not insert historians' names where an argument belongs.

erp said...

Hey, Skipper, when you say, do not insert historians' names where an argument belongs, do you mean even pre-eminent ones? ;-}

Harry Eagar said...

Really? All those states are monarchist, Catholic and espouse fuhrerprinzip?

I mentioned -- but you ignored -- that my use of 'fascism' tracks closely with Nolte's in 'Three Faces of Fascism.' Funny thing,h e did not list any of those states, although in a 500-page book,he had space to do so.

The idiotic rightwing meme that has decided that fascism was left -- even if all fascists considered themselves right -- is proof of the desperation of rightwingers to deny that part of their heritage.

When Dalton Trumbo's 'Johnny Got His Gun' was reprinted during the Vietnam War, Trumbo wrote an amusing new preface about his experiences with the book after it came out in 1940.

While it was embraced by the left in 1970, and had been written from the left (stalinist type) in 1940, when it was withdrswn after Pearl Harbor, Trumbo said he got protests from rightists with 'swanky tidewater addresses' who were outraged. I suppose you can guess why.

Hey Skipper said...

I mentioned -- but you ignored -- that my use of 'fascism' tracks closely with Nolte's in 'Three Faces of Fascism.'

I could not possibly care less about historian's names. If you have an argument, present it.

I assert that by your definition, the one you yourself presented, each of those states qualifies as fascist.

The idiotic meme here is the promiscuous use of the word in the first place. That would be you, calling Clint Eastwood a fascist, for just one example.

The second idiotic meme is that you can trot out niggling details, monarchist, Catholic, espouse fuhrerprinzip, as if they are meaningful.

They aren't. There are plenty of countries that have been monarchist and Catholic without being "fascist", and fuhrerprinzip is just a tarted up way of saying "cult of personality".

Further, you aren't even comprehending the meme you call idiotic. It isn't that fascism was "right" instead of "left"; rather, as you have abundantly proven above, there is no definition for fascism that doesn't collect every communist regime along the way.

Which was kind of the point of the post. The terms "left" and "right" are practically useless. Instead, the spectrum isn't arbitrary directions, but rather from collectivism to individualism.

In that regard, fascism and communism are twins separated at birth. The only real distinction, and not one that makes a particular difference, is that communism is universalist, while fascist regimes are particular.

It astonishes me that you could, with an apparently straight face, say that Greece was fascist, but Venezuela is not.

Greece wasn't Catholic, Venezuela is. Greece was monarchist, Venezuala isn't. I doubt the Greek military regime had anything like fuhrerprinzip, but Venezuala most certainly does.

Now explain, and it shouldn't be that hard, why Venezuela isn't fascist, but Greece was.

Because sentences like "tracks closely with ..." are completely empty.

Oh, and you still have that whole ex nihilo thing going on.

It must be a reality-based community thing.

Hey Skipper said...

This is classic.

From the Wikipedia article: Nolte's conclusion was that fascism was the great anti-movement: it was anti-liberal, anti-communist, anti-capitalist, and anti-bourgeois.

Which could just as easily be written as ... communism was the great anti-movement: it was anti-liberal, anti-fascist, anti-capitalist, and anti-bourgeois.

It's singularly odd both communism and fascism are both against all the other things, yet somehow completely different.

Hey Skipper said...

More Nolte: To Nolte, fascism, communism's twin, arose as a desperate response by the threatened middle classes of Europe to what Nolte has often called the “Bolshevik peril”.

Hmmm. I'm starting to like this Nolte guy.

Hey Skipper said...

More Nolte: Nolte's assertion that Nazi Germany was a "mirror image" of the Soviet Union has also received support from several other more recent scholars, notably from Stéphane Courtois, who argues both that Nazi Germany adopted its system of repression from Soviet methods and that the Soviet genocides of peoples living in the Caucasus and the exterminations of large social groups in Russia were not very much different from similar policies by the Nazis:

"The deliberate starvation of a child of a Ukrainian kulak as a result of the famine caused by Stalin's regime "is equal to" the starvation of a Jewish child in the Warsaw ghetto as a result of the famine caused by the Nazi regime".

Howard said...

Harry,

Ever heard of voluntary association? How about right of exit?

Hey Skipper said...

And maybe a little taste of what fascism is like from our progressive friends in Wisconsin.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Eagar;

And you did not say 'economic historians,' I did.

Then why are you asking me about it? What part of "reality-based community" means asking me to explain things you write?

Harry Eagar said...

The fascists thought they were rightists, but what did they know?

So, I have another question: if there is no real difference between communism and fascism, why has the US consistently, since April 12, 1945, supported one and made war against the other? Was there no third way?

'unnamed economic historians;

Are you quite sure they were unnamed?

Howard said...

Ding! Ding! Ding! Jackpot!
That is because I am in the reality-based community.

Unless someone was known to be mentally ill, that would be the default assumption. In my experience, so far without exception, people who make that declaration are sure that anyone they disagree with is stupid, evil or both. They also usually exhibit glaring holes in their understanding.

Anonymous said...

Howard;

I take "reality-based community" to mean "I base my opinions on facts in the same way Hollywood bases its movies on true stories".

Hey Skipper said...

[Harry:] The fascists thought they were rightists, but what did they know?

Okay, let's say they did. What difference does it make?

... if there is no real difference between communism and fascism, why has the US consistently, since April 12, 1945, supported one and made war against the other?

When did the US "make war" against communism? (And before you say "Vietnam", remember what an inversion of reality that is.)

And you missed the one difference between the two: communism is universalist; "fascism" never is.

There's probably yet another. Communist regimes are always totalitarian; "fascist" regimes merely (generally speaking) authoritarian.

One of those two required a containment policy. When you figure out which, then you will also break free from your addiction to ex nihilo.

Still waiting for an explanation of how antisydicalist restrictions can exist in a free market (let alone a society that takes the Bill of Rights seriously).

Since Harry can't be bothered with cites, I'll take up the slack. This is syndicalism:

Syndicalism is a type of proposed economic system, a form of socialism, considered a replacement for capitalism. It suggests that industries be organised into confederations or syndicates. It is "a system of economic organization in which industries are owned and managed by the workers."

Its theory and practice is the advocation of multiple cooperative productive units composed of specialists and representatives of workers in each respective field to negotiate and manage the economy. Syndicalism also refers to the political movement (praxis) and tactics used to bring about this type of system.

For adherents, labour unions and labour training (see below) are the potential means of both overcoming economic aristocracy and running society fairly and in the interest of informed and skilled majorities, through union democracy. Industry in a syndicalist system would be run through co-operative confederations and mutual aid. Local syndicates would communicate with other syndicates through the Bourse du Travail (labour exchange) which would cooperatively determine distributions of commodities.

Syndicalism is also used to refer to the tactic of bringing about this social arrangement, typically expounded by anarcho-syndicalism and De Leonism. It aims to achieve a general strike, a workers' outward refusal of their current modes of production, followed by organisation into federations of trade unions, such as the CNT.

Throughout its history, the reformist section of syndicalism has been overshadowed by its revolutionary section, typified by the Federación Anarquista Ibérica section of the CNT.


You need to rethink that question.

Hey Skipper said...

[Clovis:] What kind of background?

If you mean things from the point of view of the US and the world by then, I've done so in this very same thread (up above).

Or do you mean our internal background?


Your internal background.

(I'm not trying to score any debating points here, BTW.)

Clovis said...

The problem is, Skipper, I don't know how to provide that background without a long and possibly boring answer, of the kind that would not even fit in the usual space for comments.

I hope it would be enough though, to tell you that the first communist armed revolutionary groups in Brazil were formed 3 to 4 years *after* the military coup of 1964, largely as a reaction to it, instead of its cause.

IOW, if anyone up in Washington believed they were helping us by supporting that coup, the guy had a serious problem with causality.

Harry Eagar said...

When did the US make war on communism? I can give many examples, but an early one will do: The attempt to raise a revolt in Ukraine by sending in terrorists.

And here's more news from the reality-basedf community: It is not true outside the perfectly insulated nest of rightwing self-reference that the word 'capitalism' implies free markets. For example, it did not to Eric Williams when he wrote "Capitalism and Slavery." And, not or.

Hey Skipper said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hey Skipper said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hey Skipper said...

... the attempt to raise a revolt in Ukraine by sending in terrorists.

You have brought up that hoary tale before. I bet it still amounts to nothing.

Yet it is of a piece with your bolshevik apologetics. What were communists doing at the time?

For example, it did not to Eric Williams when he wrote "Capitalism and Slavery."

I'll type more slowly this time: historians' names do not constitue an argument. If Williams has one that is on point, then by all means relate it, and defend it.

Otherwise, I suspect this will turn out like I mentioned -- but you ignored -- that my use of 'fascism' tracks closely with Nolte's in 'Three Faces of Fascism.' Funny thing,h e did not list any of those states, although in a 500-page book,he had space to do so: a self inflicted wound.

You claim to track closely with Nolte, yet when face with evidence that it isn't you, but rather I, that tracks closely with Nolte, you put the goalposts in a tennis court.

You can put the word "capitalism" on the rack and torture it mercilessly, but despite that, all you can come up with is a self-defeating example, and a historian who, near as I can tell through doing the research that is really yours, isn't making the argument you attribute to him.

Instead of doing your best jell-o imitation, why don't you stand and deliver instead of slithering away?

"Reality based community" is already howler enough.

Hey Skipper said...

The problem is, Skipper, I don't know how to provide that background without a long and possibly boring answer, of the kind that would not even fit in the usual space for comments.

I am perfectly willing to grant that the US has engaged in international buffoonery exclusive of exigent circumstances -- Iran, in 1953, for instance.

But even there communism rears its ugly head:

To make matters worse, the Communist Tudeh Party, which supported the Soviet Union and had attempted to kill the Shah only four years earlier, began to infiltrate the military[58] and send mobs to "support Mossadegh" (but in reality to marginalize all non-Communist opponents). Earlier, the Tudeh had denounced Mossadegh, but by 1953 they changed tack and decided to "support" him.[59] The Tudeh violently attacked opponents under the guise of helping the prime minister (the cousin of the future queen of Iran, Farah Pahlavi, was stabbed at the age of 13 in his school by Tudeh activists),[8] and unwittingly helped cause Mossadegh's reputation to decline, despite the fact that he never officially endorsed them.

...

In 2004, Gasiorowski edited a book on the coup[103] arguing that "the climate of intense cold war rivalry between the superpowers, together with Iran's strategic vital location between the Soviet Union and the Persian Gulf oil fields, led U.S. officials to believe that they had to take whatever steps were necessary to prevent Iran from falling into Soviet hands."[103] While "these concerns seem vastly overblown today"[103] the pattern of "the 1945–46 Azerbaijan crisis, the consolidation of Soviet control in Eastern Europe, the communist triumph in China, and the Korean War—and with the Red Scare at its height in the United States"[103] would not allow U.S. officials to risk allowing the Tudeh Party to gain power in Iran.[103] Furthermore, "U.S. officials believed that resolving the oil dispute was essential for restoring stability in Iran, and after March 1953 it appeared that the dispute could be resolved only at the expense either of Britain or of Mosaddeq."[103] He concludes "it was geostrategic considerations, rather than a desire to destroy Mosaddeq's movement, to establish a dictatorship in Iran or to gain control over Iran's oil, that persuaded U.S. officials to undertake the coup."[103]


Which is what I mean when Harry falls prey to ex nihilo reasoning -- in his reality based community, things happen for no reason whatsoever.

Which is why I'm asking. I haven't found much of anything on US involvement in Brazil, and what I have found doesn't suggest it had a heck of a lot of difference in any event.

The fundemantal element of US foreign policy from about 1948 to the late 1980s was containment.

Was the US's involvement in Brazil an instance of containment, or purely cynical?

Hey Skipper said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hey Skipper said...

This indicates it was minimal.

Anonymous said...

Wow, Eagar labels Wikipedia as part of the "perfectly insulated nest of rightwing self-reference". A conspiracy so vast...

Hey Skipper said...

[Harry:] It is not true outside the perfectly insulated nest of rightwing self-reference that the word 'capitalism' implies free markets. For example, it did not to Eric Williams when he wrote "Capitalism and Slavery."

Nothing in this review suggests he made the argument in the first place.

Clovis said...

Skipper,

Well, you found yourself quite a good link on the subject. And upon reading it, I am a bit lost on where you think it says anything different from my affirmations here.

I started by recognizing the geopolitical angle here for the US, hence answering beforehand your question: yes, it was all about containment.

Which doesn't make any less true the fact that you helped to topple a democracy in favor of a dictatorship, as was Harry's point (and your link too). You can try and defend your reasons here, but they are *not* along the lines of "the bad communists were taking over if we didn't". (They may be more like "the bad communists could, maybe, far remotely possibly, have a shot at trying to take over later on if we didn't").

That the Coup was our doing was also pointed out by me. See, while for you guys it was all about containment, for many here it was only about using the excuse of communism to take control of something they couldn't get by fair elections.

The reason our dictatorship was one of the least murderous of LA was not due to Military restraint (as apologizers like to pose), but really because there was awfully few communists to take to the shooting wall: our list of "desaparecidos" barely get to five hundred people. Compare that with Argentina and their 30.000 "desaparecidos", and please take notice our population is more than 5 times theirs.

Hence my initial point: the US did overreact, in our case, when gave its hand to that exercize in tiranny (by whatever means - being true that help was more by stimulation than by dirtying their hands).

From your point of view, I can easily imagine a position like "What do I care?". So if you can take anything from this matter, I offer only this one: whenever you see people down here laughing out loud of US talk on "spreading democracy" as the cruel joke it is, do not assume this is the opinion of one more dumb marxist Latin American. It is just the natural conclusion from our own experimentation by hanging out with Brother Sam.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 231 of 231   Newer› Newest»