January...THREAD of the month nominations

Falena · Jan 5, 2016

Thank you for participating.
Please post both the entire text and link, along with brief explanation why you find your nomination worthwhile.
Members are encouraged to like their favorite thread. At the end of the month, staff will count the likes and announce the best thread winner.
We are hoping and emphasizing that members should only nominate threads that meet all posting rules and guidelines. Removing inappropriate nominations will be at the discretion of the PF staff.

Doug_yvr · Jan 7, 2016

Here's my nomination for Thread of the Month. Troianii's self-described 'rant' is actually a very thoughtfully written appeal for opinions on the question of whether the need to win obscures the truth.

Troianii said: ↑

On politics, that is. I enjoy the dialogue, but do many people approach it like it's about "winning". I read an American Philosopher, Jame Pierce, who advocated use of the scientific method - not for life, but for beliefs. And so often I see people more committed to defending their political beliefs without sound evidence than they do their religion.

It use to be that people defended their religion to the death without significant evidence - I'm religious, but I don't believe that the way that I came to my faith is a transferable experience, so I don't bother. I readily acknowledge that if I didn't have certain religious experiences then, with my mind and the way I approach things, I'd probably be an Atheist. And in politics I at least think I do a pretty good job of what political positions I hold out of value (that is, I value freedom such that I'm okay with many negative results) and out of evidence (for example, I use to think that we should invest more heavily in public education,but the evidence doesn't show significant correlation between dollars spent per pupil and outcomes).

But I hear people talk politics and with most people I don't think they care about finding the truth, they care about winning. And I've never had any thoughts of significantly changing people's views enough to reshape society myself, but if people are set in defending that 2+2=3, why even bother?

I just find myself getting far more selective with who I'll even bother talking to about politics. It's seems that easily 30-40% of society is more concerned with winning than finding the truth. Still more are so venomous that I wouldn't want to deal with them even if I agreed with them completely. There's about 30-40% that, imo, are even worth talking to.

Edit: #endrant
Thanks for reading
Click to expand...

Link to thread

DarkSkies · Jan 13, 2016

I want to nominate this thread. The back and forth between those offering their views on different economic systems was entertaining and insightful.

Ramboz said: ↑

1. Your claim that "What the Bolsheviks created was no better than what the Nazis created in Germany" is completely and utterly incorrect. I'll repeat myself. Nazis created an oligarchic capitalist death state that was firmly anti-modern. Women and minorities were second-class citizens (if not worse). Insane violence was a daily occurrence. The economy was literally based on theft from the poorest people in the society, and social mobility was nonexistent, so it's little surprise that the Nazi state lasted for little more than a decade. The Bolsheviks created a modern country. People had basic economic rights. Women and minorities could succeed and attain an education in a way they could not do in any other capitalist nation in the world at the time. Roads and schools were built, and everyone was encouraged to become educated. The USSR ended up lasting for nine decades. Now, I'm no Stalinist, but it's clear that the Bolsheviks were a force for modernity, and the USSR reflected that. The Nazis were a force for fundamentalism (like Islamic extremists today and their slightly-less-radical Christian counterparts in the West; namely, the GOP and the neo-fascist parties of Europe). Again, you really can't mobilize logic like that. Using it, I can easily prove that all capitalists are secretly fascists. Capitalists use scapegoating and fear-mongering of Islamic people, for example, to hide the failures of the system (i.e.it encourages fear of the very fundamentalists it creates). This can be seen in that Islamic terrorists really don't kill very many people, especially compared to how many die of basic health problems like diabetes, heart disease, etc. Capitalism encourages those under its thrall to be deeply afraid of the scapegoated Islamic "Other" precisely because it wants to conceal from people that they live in a bad economic system, their are no jobs, inequality is systematic, they are slowly dying from health problems related to the processed food they can barely afford, etc. Fascists also used scapegoating and fear-mongering of Jewish people in a similar manner. Ergo, all capitalists are fascists! (or basically the same as them, anyway)

2. Your claim that "The system we have now gives you, me and everyone else a voice, at least potentially. USE IT. Don't blame the entire FREE system we have for failures and then propose to replace it all with something WORSE. Instead, get together with those who share your concerns and ADDRESS YOUR PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES. Just don't attempt some kind of overthrow because you don't like how things are going." fundamentally misses my point. The current system is rapidly failing to give ordinary people a voice, and is in this respect becoming completely "un-free". Just look at the state of the U.S. electoral system, and you can clearly see that we are approaching the kind of oligarchic capitalism that exists in China today. Moreover, my proposal is that the system is destroying itself. I don't have a magic replacement system (I'm not a traditional utopian communist), I just think that the current system is ceasing to function, so people are going to have to decide between oligarchy, fundamentalism, and the third option, communism, which is fundamentally defined by mass movements of people who radically redefine what was previously thought possible. Moreover, I'm plenty political. In fact, I'm using my "voice" right now on a political website to argue with you, so your argument doesn't make much sense. I just understand that my political voice (and politics in general) means less and less. I'll always support liberals over conservatives, given the choice, but I fully recognize that I am being presented with a false dichotomy, because neither group can solve the fundamental problems I am concerned with. Additionally, it's not me you should be worried about overthrowing the system (not that I accept your straw man characterization of me wanting violent revolution and a Stalinist state; I don't). The system is overthrowing itself.

3. I've already explained why your optimism is misguided, and why the use of "green" energy (no matter what kind) won't change anything:
"You trust that capitalism will resolve the climate change crisis (hence your reference to the next generation technology and energy sources). This assumes capitalism in its modern form is based on enlightened self-interest. It's not. The productive forces (essentially, the means of production), like a political meme, seek only to reproduce and expand, regardless of our needs and desires. So far, the reproduction of the productive forces has satisfied our increasing needs of desires, but that is increasingly becoming untrue. For example, the 2008 financial crisis was created by supposed economic "experts" acted in a deeply irrational manner, creating a economic system that was doomed to failure. Krugman captured the deep irrationality of the system when he stated that, had someone gone back in time and warned everyone of what was about to happen, most would have still "followed the herd" and made the risky decisions that precipitated the crisis. The issue of climate change presents such a point of irrationality. Many companies actually welcome the effects of climate change because it allows them to make more profits in the short term (cleaning up ecological disasters, etc.) or at the very least want to continue with the status quo because it also them to make profits in the short term (oil and gas companies). It's these companies that held fund the GOP and their climate change-denialism. What's interesting here is that they are not acting in their own enlightened self-interest by doing so. Climate change clearly hurts capitalism, but they nevertheless keep on going down the road to self-destruction. Perhaps communism (a third way, different than capitalism and fundamentalism) is needed to save capitalism from itself."

I also mentioned that your ideology about green energy has the structure of a fantasy:
"Your ideology about the "next generation of energy and other technologies" saving our environment is just as much of a fantasy as Marx's formulation of a communist society (the difference is the latter is more honest). The problem is that we are entering an era where technology is actively part of our problem, as advancements in technology will likely entrench inequality. Moreover, there's little technology can do to save our society from its fundamental ideological problem. After the 2008 financial crisis and the rise of global inequality, most people no longer even believe they believe in capitalism anymore, hence the rise of fundamentalism world-wide. People are looking for political alternatives in a way they haven't since the 1930s. That disturbs me, and it should disturb you."

You mention China's problem with pollution. The problem is that a place like China will always have to exist for global capitalism to function. In fact, as China becomes more middle class, other countries (such as India) end up "picked up the slack" in terms of pollution as they take over China's cheap manufacturing industry. In other words, China's pollution will just be shifted elsewhere.

4. You seem unable to answer any of the other questions I originally posed (climate change is only one problem among the many democratic capitalism faces.) Your silence on the matter has continually proved the point I originally raised. That's a problem for your ideology.

To reiterate:

How can democratic capitalism effectively deal with climate change and the increasing scarcity of resources around the globe? How can democratic capitalism answer both the religious fundamentalism it has created in the Middle East and the neo-fascist fundamentalism that is re-surging in the West? How can democratic capitalism combat rising inequality? How can democratic capitalism control advancements in (particularly genetic) technology so as not to entrench inequality so deeply that society no longer functions?

5. You conclude by claiming that I act as though the "sky were falling" when it actually is not. I've already explained why I am pessimistic/apocalyptic, but I'll do so again. Our society is deeply apocalyptic subconsciously. This can be clearly demonstrated by the rise of survivalist/doomsday preppers groups, our cultural obsession and glorification of the apocalypse in movies and films in recent years (the zombie apocalypse genre is a good example), and the rise of religious fundamentalism and extremism (both Christian and Muslim). For example, Donald Trump, the leader of the Republican field in the United States, is deeply pessimistic (indeed, almost apocalyptic) about the future of America. He said that "America is out of control" and that "The country is going to hell, we have people who don't know what they're doing in Washington." This, combined with his slogan ("Make America Great Again") clear identifies his position as that of a fundamentalist, who wants to return of the "good old days" of earlier American capitalism to escape the apocalyptic nightmare he sees looming ahead (this, of course, is a Romantic fantasy; the "good old days (a) never existed as they as idealized and (b) were, in reality, what got us into this mess in the first place). In other words, our current capitalist ideology cannot sustain itself because most do not even believe they believe in it anymore; instead, they live in fantasies assume the magical end of the current system. Those who do not maintain these fantasies are strangely obsessed with those who do (the Western obsession with radical fundamentalist Muslims that I mentioned earlier is a good example). You seem to be advocating for a liberal (anti-apocalyptic) position. The problem is that this position cannot effectively overcome the apocalyptic-ism of the fundamentalists. The only way to save the good aspects of liberalism (Enlightenment rights), is for communism to step in as apocalyptic ideology that is not fundamentalist. To summarize: I (as well as other communists) are apocalyptic for the same reason we became communists. We recognize that our society is increasing apocalyptic ideologically and failing to function for the majority of people. Apocalyptic communism is needed to provide a "third way": a political alternative that is not fundamentalist but rejects capitalism, that preserves the legacy of Enlightenment rights but also represents the will of the people and their economic rights.
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

January...THREAD of the month nominations

Falena Cherry Bomb Staff Member Past Donor

Doug_yvr Well-Known Member Past Donor

DarkSkies Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

January...THREAD of the month nominations

Falena Cherry Bomb Staff Member Past Donor

Doug_yvr Well-Known Member Past Donor

DarkSkies Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches