Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
Einherjar86
Active Member
I would say racist. But I was trying to avoid that discussion and stick on the "communism vs. fascism" topic. 
Dak
mentat
I would say racist. But I was trying to avoid that discussion and stick on the "communism vs. fascism" topic.
I would say fascism/nationalism isn't going to work as well without some racism, since nations are ethnic historically. I see xenophobia working quite differently. Feeling superior doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a fear to the point of hunting and killing the supposedly "inferior" group. It can, for example, manifest as "White Man's Burden".
Einherjar86
Active Member
I don't disagree. I'm just saying that xenophobia is an aspect of the racist ethnic cleansings we've been discussing. You can't be racist in a nationalist/centralized sense and not be xenophobic. But xenophobia can exist in lesser degrees that don't involve state sponsored exterminations.
The white man's burden did involve state sponsored exterminations, though.
The white man's burden did involve state sponsored exterminations, though.
Dak
mentat
Fair point on the WMB. I think it's come up before, but I extremely dislike putting "phobos" on the end of words when it's really not a phobia by clinical definitions. That sort of language is Trumpian in terms of persuasion but it really has no business being used in an intellectual discourse. But of course it's all over the place. Obviously we could potentially find some clinical cases of such a phobia (or at least I imagine we could), but it's far too watered down and it becomes too problematic.
But back to politics: I'm a confused at calling communism the critique of political economy. I understand it as a particular offered alternative model of sociopolitical organization.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Did I call it "the" critique; as in, the only critique? If I did, then I misspoke. I only meant that communism began as a philosophical model: "critique of political economy," referring to the subtitle of Capital. Fascism has very different origins.
As far as xenophobia goes, yes: it deviates from what we consider official phobias. I don't think that renders it useless - it's simply a socially developed word rather than a, say, clinically developed one.
As far as xenophobia goes, yes: it deviates from what we consider official phobias. I don't think that renders it useless - it's simply a socially developed word rather than a, say, clinically developed one.
Dak
mentat
I didn't mean the critique as in the only. I see communism as a model of sociopolitical organization (specifically laid out in the Manifesto). It is separate from the critique in Capital.
Attaching phobia to terminology to suggest that a dislike of something is an "irrational fear" - a mental disorder no less - is persuasion gold. It's really just name-calling, which is why I referred to it as Trumpian. Of course, other politicians do it as well, but Trump is generally better at it. I've really enjoyed this election cycle compared to the last few. It has been a learning experience.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Hmm. Well, I think this is debatable, but I'm not sure it would be productive.
What I will say though is that communism, even as Marx describes it in the Manifesto, isn't constitutively nationalistic. It may become nationalistic once adopted as a political system; but I would attribute this less to communism tout court, and more (as you suggest) to preexisting nationhood. Fascism, on the other hand, foregrounds its nationalistic quality.
Dak
mentat
Sure, communists would posit themselves as "universalists". I think this is incredibly more threatening than nationalism. Unless you happen to be in the "wrong nation" of course.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
I think this is somewhat of a false dichotomy.
It's not so much to me about communism v fascism, but rather that fascism is very often a product of communism in practice (setting aside the apologist positions of true/false application).
The fact is, what fascism means fundamentally in terms of it's core values is often found in communist systems, from North Korean racial purity to Soviet expansionism. They seem to be stuck together, yet separate.
It's not so much to me about communism v fascism, but rather that fascism is very often a product of communism in practice (setting aside the apologist positions of true/false application).
The fact is, what fascism means fundamentally in terms of it's core values is often found in communist systems, from North Korean racial purity to Soviet expansionism. They seem to be stuck together, yet separate.
Einherjar86
Active Member
That's interesting.
I think I would say that fascism isn't a product of communism per se, but rather of extreme, fanatical nationalism. Calling it a product of communism suggests that communism results in fascistic tendencies, or gives rise to them - that something within communism produces fascism. I don't think that's a necessary correlation. I would say that fascism is more like a quality of radical nationalism (which can, of course, assume a communistic form).
I think I would say that fascism isn't a product of communism per se, but rather of extreme, fanatical nationalism. Calling it a product of communism suggests that communism results in fascistic tendencies, or gives rise to them - that something within communism produces fascism. I don't think that's a necessary correlation. I would say that fascism is more like a quality of radical nationalism (which can, of course, assume a communistic form).
Dak
mentat
Fascism is a nationalistic immune response to universalistic politics (communism being the ultimate political expression). At least that's a bit of NRx critique.
Einherjar86
Active Member
In some cases I'm sure it is; but in some cases I'm sure it's simply an extension of already entrenched nationalism - which, as you've suggested, is going to be present in any country, regardless of governmental organization.
Dak
mentat
Hot damn, you should be happy Pat:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160929-our-iqs-have-never-been-higher-but-it-hasnt-made-us-smart
Of course I think the greatest weight is on history, not lit. But I also read all the great lit stuff as a young teen. I don't remember much in terms of details, but it had to have had at least subtle effects.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160929-our-iqs-have-never-been-higher-but-it-hasnt-made-us-smart
Of course I think the greatest weight is on history, not lit. But I also read all the great lit stuff as a young teen. I don't remember much in terms of details, but it had to have had at least subtle effects.
Baroque
Active Member
People just need to be well rounded and educate themselves outside of school. Be a stem major but read philosophy, play music,... have hobbies. History.. idk we can learn some from the past but we cannot change it. Literature, sure that's a form of art, but in some ways the same as watching an opera. Art consumption doesn't have to be literature specifically. The author seems to think literature is somehow a higher form of art and I completely disagree.
Baroque
Active Member
I would also call into question the validity of this claim that IQ scores have risen. By design at least the mean and standard deviation IQ scores remain the same. If average IQ scores have risen that is a problem with the test that must be corrected.
Additionally, people in the past took a different IQ test than people in the present.
People are clearly more educated now, but education levels should not necessarily be reflected in IQ scores. At different education levels, people take different tests. Again this suggests a the possibility of a problem with the test as a fair measure of intelligence. I'd have to run the numbers to be sure, but you know, I'd trust the IQ test people are already on that.
Additionally, people in the past took a different IQ test than people in the present.
People are clearly more educated now, but education levels should not necessarily be reflected in IQ scores. At different education levels, people take different tests. Again this suggests a the possibility of a problem with the test as a fair measure of intelligence. I'd have to run the numbers to be sure, but you know, I'd trust the IQ test people are already on that.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Well, it's my opinion that reading literature is reading history. Obviously there is an aesthetic appreciation to reading fiction, poetry, drama, etc., but for me the most important aspect of literature isn't its aesthetic value. I'm a firm believer in methodologies such as New Historicism, the Marxian political unconscious, deconstruction, et al - none of which have much to say about aesthetic theory.
So, for me, literature reveals a lot about history and cultural ideology. That's where I see the most value in literary study.
But I just have to make a comment on Flynn's distaste for millennials, which strikes me as a really hip thing to hate right now. He says that millennials don't read enough history or literature... but does he seriously think that the generations before us read more history or literature? That's where he loses me. If anything, millennials have more exposure to history via the internet, even if it's a considerably warped vision of history. As far as previous generations go, I don't think our parents or grandparents read an overwhelmingly greater amount of historical scholarship.
I don't think literature is a "higher" form of art either, but I do think that reading a book is very different than watching an opera. That isn't to make a value judgment one way or another, but we consume different kinds of art/media in distinct ways that affect how we perceive them and how we interpret their meaning. Form communicates as much as content.
Dak
mentat
I was under the impression that the tests were adjusted to keep the mean at 100, and/or the statistical operations were done to adjust the mean. If these operations/changes are done in the interest of shifting the curve up, you could say "IQs keep rising".
The explanation for rising scores that I have seen is that IQ is, generally, a better estimator of the ability to think abstractly. Education is increasingly in terms of the abstract supposedly, and so people are performing better on the IQ tests. it doesn't necessarily mean that there have been any improvements in critical thinking skills, etc.
Well it's a part of history.
I think it's possible that generations in the US possibly read more history than currently. Of course we have an unprecedented amount of access to pretty much everything via the internet, but that doesn't mean it's being used in quality ways. I see so many people caught up in "immediatism" or something, which supports the "viral" videos etc, or THIS ELECTION IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE EVER, or THE WORLD HANGS IN THE BALANCE, etc kind of thinking. Even amongst grad students there's quite a bit of this. Our connection to history almost appears to be somewhat severed by the internet. History grows hazier with every new tweet.
The book is always better than the movie.
Einherjar86
Active Member
So are history books.
Sure, it's possible; but "immediatism" is rampant among older generations as well. There was actually a book published recently that talks about this, Inventing the Future by Alex Williams and Nick Srnicek. They refer to this immediacy as "folk politics."
Those older generations may not be as entwined in the internet lifestyle, but they're no closer to history because of this, even having experienced more of it. Our heavily mediated relationship to history is arguably far less localized than our grandparents'.
Except for No Country For Old Men, I agree.
Dak
mentat
Well in terms of how widespread it is, I'd imagine the majority has always only had the attention spans limited to the present. But what constitutes the present has been reduced, or at least appears to have been reduced, from maybe a couple of years to a couple of weeks. More people with college degrees = a slightly more "cosmopolitan" group of people, but I don't know that that has actually proven beneficial in any measurable way.
