Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
Einherjar86
Active Member
That is wonderful. It makes a lot of sense and would explain a great deal about the persistence of complaints from the left and right - that liberals can complain that government doesn't do enough, while conservatives complain it does too much.
Dak
mentat
It really makes a lot of sense. Of course, what I will call the "Misesian" critique about the scope of government is exactly this. That by increasing the scope the scale must necessarily decline. How this appears functionally is that the connected can avoid the narrowingly capable focus of an increasingly stretched bureaucracy (although direct/indirect costs and taxes still increase). Some random person loses everything because of some obscure law but MegaCorp gets away with proverbial and/or literal murder. Of course, the anarchist solution is zero government and I've backed off of this if for no other reason the majority of people will never go for this. It's the utopia of the high-IQ aspergerish few. I think that article may offer a nice middleground.
Edit: Austrian Econs' and others have called neoliberals/(neocons) Trotskyites for a while. I don't think the replication of the Soviet system is "unwitting".
Edit: Austrian Econs' and others have called neoliberals/(neocons) Trotskyites for a while. I don't think the replication of the Soviet system is "unwitting".
Last edited:
rms
Active Member
Not news, not mort, not philosophical but I think this is a really solid article on B Clinton & "Tough on Crime" (shit title though imo)
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/09/stone-mountain-kkk-white-supremacy-simmons/
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/09/stone-mountain-kkk-white-supremacy-simmons/
Einherjar86
Active Member
Seems interesting, wasn't able to cover all of it. Long read... 
Enlightening though, if not entirely surprising. Clinton was a neoliberal president to an intense degree, the president of the "happy nineties." It makes sense that most of his policy concerns would avoid issues that trouble that whole narrative.
Enlightening though, if not entirely surprising. Clinton was a neoliberal president to an intense degree, the president of the "happy nineties." It makes sense that most of his policy concerns would avoid issues that trouble that whole narrative.
Dak
mentat
Although Bush scummery is multigenerational and therefore maybe worse on the whole as a family, I don't know that any two people occupying public office over the last x number of decades deserve more villification for a variety of reasons, both concrete and conspiratorial, than the Clintons.
rms
Active Member
I just feel so ignorant on the southern US political realm, seeing that use of location + speed is just a damning argument against that policy
Dak
mentat
rms
Active Member
Clinton using his tough on crime speech utop that Georgia monument. In combination with the glorification of the Confederacy in symbols and leadership during the time period.
Sure there's more, just ignorant on it
Sure there's more, just ignorant on it
Dak
mentat
The Clintons are pure opportunists. They do or say whatever they need to.
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
One of his best moments was his Sister Souljah moment, he's obviously a much better political personality than Hillary.
rms
Active Member
I have no doubt that is true for most politicians, but the South seems to have that hypocrisy more in the open and not really confronted until relatively recently.
Trying to figure out what it is in the north, segregation I guess?
Trying to figure out what it is in the north, segregation I guess?
Dak
mentat
Possibly partially because of a more limited number of tribal affiliations?
On a different topic: I've argued before about the completely ludicrous (although explainable) left- intellectual ignoring or whitewashing of communism, while Fascism is the Supreme Evil.
It is completely uncritical to be "anti-oppression" or start talking about how lives matter, or whatever else in that vein, and to be a communist apologist.
This came up recently due to my expressing some disdain about some prominent "social activist" speakers with ties to the US Communist party. Then this article came across my feed.
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/The-house-is-on-fire--8466
The pure numbers are bad enough, and unless one were a Jew, the culture of fear and oppression isn't close either.
On a different topic: I've argued before about the completely ludicrous (although explainable) left- intellectual ignoring or whitewashing of communism, while Fascism is the Supreme Evil.
It is completely uncritical to be "anti-oppression" or start talking about how lives matter, or whatever else in that vein, and to be a communist apologist.
This came up recently due to my expressing some disdain about some prominent "social activist" speakers with ties to the US Communist party. Then this article came across my feed.
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/The-house-is-on-fire--8466
The pure numbers are bad enough, and unless one were a Jew, the culture of fear and oppression isn't close either.
Einherjar86
Active Member
The Soviet atrocities are unforgivable, and Stalinist apologetics are questionable at best.
But communist apologetics are very different from fascist apologetics, because fascism is founded upon values of ethnocentrism, nationalism, and xenophobia. Communism isn't, despite the manifestation of these values in historical episodes like the Soviet experiment. One can be a "communist apologist" without being an apologist for Stalinist cruelties.
But communist apologetics are very different from fascist apologetics, because fascism is founded upon values of ethnocentrism, nationalism, and xenophobia. Communism isn't, despite the manifestation of these values in historical episodes like the Soviet experiment. One can be a "communist apologist" without being an apologist for Stalinist cruelties.
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
Fascism and communism often overlap in history though, North Korea being an obvious example.
Why are fascism and communism "very different" to you though? You don't seem to be merely pointing out that fascism has different founding values here, but rather implying something else.
Why are fascism and communism "very different" to you though? You don't seem to be merely pointing out that fascism has different founding values here, but rather implying something else.
Dak
mentat
I rarely see the C-c distinction though functionally. In terms of organized politics, communists are Communists. Even worse, those that broke with the Communist Party post Soviet collapse like to sell it as seeing the light a little bit when really the funding just ended.
German Naziism is not the only form of fascism, so it doesn't require xenophobia. But fascism is extreme nationalism, which like CIG noted shares substantial overlap with Communism.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Communism began as a critical philosophy - "critique of the political economy." Fascism began as a political movement.
Well, then there needs to be more specifics in the conversation.
I take issue with the suggestion that it is "uncritical" to be a communist apologist and be anti-oppression (or anti-fascist). I consider myself a communist apologist, but not an apologist for Soviet communism (or N. Korean communism, or what have you). A rejoinder might be that it's practically pointless to distinguish between these two, but I don't think so. Communism has value as a critical methodology. Fascism has minimal critical perspective; it's a rhetorically and emotionally driven brand of nationalism.
Communism can certainly become nationalistic and rhetorically driven when implemented in a politically programmatic fashion, but I don't think these things constitute it.
In its philosophical sense, communism is emphatically anti-nationalistic. Marx was highly critical of German nationalism.
Also, most brands of fascism beyond Naziism are xenophobic. Fascism really began in Italy, and it was very xenophobic.
Dak
mentat
If one wanted to be very brusque one might suggest that fascists dispensed with the facade of intellectualism as it relates to politics. Politicians/leaders are typically not intellectual in a philosophical sense. Intellectualism becomes a handicap at some point to grabbing the levers of power.
I see a big difference between declaring one's group superior and wanting another group wiped out. Italian and German fascism look kind of similar until you get to part about needing to eradicate a particular ethnic group. I don't see open demands of assimilation as "xenophobic". It's a political practicality liberals don't understand - or even worse, maybe they do.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Intellectualism might make power-grabbing difficult... but then, maybe it should.
And xenophobia need not only apply to the annihilation of particular ethnic groups. Xenophobia simply refers to a centralized, programmatic distrust toward and paranoia of certain groups based on race or ethnicity. In this sense, Italy was definitely xenophobic. Mussolini was terrified of the prospect of "white extinction," and promoted various ethnic cleansing operations, although nothing that matched the extent of the Holocaust.
And xenophobia need not only apply to the annihilation of particular ethnic groups. Xenophobia simply refers to a centralized, programmatic distrust toward and paranoia of certain groups based on race or ethnicity. In this sense, Italy was definitely xenophobic. Mussolini was terrified of the prospect of "white extinction," and promoted various ethnic cleansing operations, although nothing that matched the extent of the Holocaust.
