The Left in America has lost its bearings
March 14, 2002 4:33 AM Subscribe
The Left in America has lost its bearings An appraisal of what is pereceived as a decline in Left thinking from a Leftist writing for a fine journal specializing in socialistic critiques of America.
Piece of ____ article.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:58 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by ParisParamus at 4:58 AM on March 14, 2002
If by "left" you mean west, I concur. People on the west coast are dumb (don't stoop to my level ppl).
Also note people in the right complain about declines in rightist thinking. Actually I decry the decline in people thinking like me in general.
posted by Settle at 5:21 AM on March 14, 2002
Also note people in the right complain about declines in rightist thinking. Actually I decry the decline in people thinking like me in general.
posted by Settle at 5:21 AM on March 14, 2002
I'm glad you posted this, myself, and will probably send it to a few friends... Never mind these progeriac Young Republicans.
posted by y2karl at 5:41 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by y2karl at 5:41 AM on March 14, 2002
I am not sure why the acrimony about the use of the word "left." It is, and has always been a term applied politically to positions that range from (sitting) on the left, the middle or the right. How pothesie to describe those whose political postion seem one or another way? Does the label Democrat, Republican, Green Party, Libertarian better suit ? I doubt it. But then annoyance with the word Left seems not to bother those who are pround of the labelp and similarly, those who are taken as conservative seem not ill at ease on being cited as sitting on the Right. Perhaps Conservative rather than Right; and Liberal rather than Left? But then there are those who are conservative on fiscal matters and liberal on social policies etc etc.
posted by Postroad at 5:51 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by Postroad at 5:51 AM on March 14, 2002
But then there are those who are conservative on fiscal matters and liberal on social policies etc etc.
In general, what you describe here is Libertarian. "Conservative" on fiscal matters pretty much means keep the government out of the boardroom (let Microsoft, Sun, and Oracle duke it out amongst themselves without the Justice dept. being involved). "Liberal" on social policies pretty much means keep government out of the bedroom (who the hell cares what Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell think is "moral). Both reduce to one thing - in most cases people can figure out how to live their lives, associate with one another, and organize to further their interests far better than government bureaucracy can.
Would love to see this tried someday. Doubt I ever will.
posted by MidasMulligan at 6:12 AM on March 14, 2002
In general, what you describe here is Libertarian. "Conservative" on fiscal matters pretty much means keep the government out of the boardroom (let Microsoft, Sun, and Oracle duke it out amongst themselves without the Justice dept. being involved). "Liberal" on social policies pretty much means keep government out of the bedroom (who the hell cares what Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell think is "moral). Both reduce to one thing - in most cases people can figure out how to live their lives, associate with one another, and organize to further their interests far better than government bureaucracy can.
Would love to see this tried someday. Doubt I ever will.
posted by MidasMulligan at 6:12 AM on March 14, 2002
Never mind these progeriac Young Republicans.
How pothesie to describe those whose political postion seem one or another way?
You know, I don't like to be the grammar/spelling/usage police, but do you guys preview at all? I have no idea what "progeriac" or "pothesie" mean, and the meanings of your sentences are completely lost without them. Either you're using terribly obscure words or you've made egregious typos.
posted by anapestic at 6:21 AM on March 14, 2002
How pothesie to describe those whose political postion seem one or another way?
You know, I don't like to be the grammar/spelling/usage police, but do you guys preview at all? I have no idea what "progeriac" or "pothesie" mean, and the meanings of your sentences are completely lost without them. Either you're using terribly obscure words or you've made egregious typos.
posted by anapestic at 6:21 AM on March 14, 2002
"progeriac" is the product of accelerated aging (from progeria).
My problem with these kinds of articles is the author's need not just to state his opinions, but how they differ from some institutional, amorphous "left". Can't we just accept that humanitarianism and libertarianism are two noble, usually conflicting, ideals that should both be respected, and then make decisions on issues as they emerge. Is there a need for an all-encompassing "left" position?
posted by liam at 6:39 AM on March 14, 2002
My problem with these kinds of articles is the author's need not just to state his opinions, but how they differ from some institutional, amorphous "left". Can't we just accept that humanitarianism and libertarianism are two noble, usually conflicting, ideals that should both be respected, and then make decisions on issues as they emerge. Is there a need for an all-encompassing "left" position?
posted by liam at 6:39 AM on March 14, 2002
Liam: Humanitarianism and libertarianism are not at all in conflict. The only reason people are libertarian at all, is because the believe it is the most humanistic approach to life: that is, the one that offers the most good for the most people. That's the only reason any of us, left or right, take a political position. As far as this article is concerned, I would suggest that the writer is no longer a man of the left, and may as well come out and admit it that his god has failed, and it's time to take out a subscription to the American Standard. The "left" died along with socialism and Marxism in the early 1990s. The "left" is today is little more than a kind of mooshy upper-middle-class moralism, that would be indistinguishable from feel-good Episcopalianism but for the fierceness of its puritan rage over little faults of human nature like racism, sexual difference, and the desire for SUVs.
posted by Faze at 6:52 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by Faze at 6:52 AM on March 14, 2002
The only reason people are libertarian at all, is because the believe it is the most humanistic approach to life: that is, the one that offers the most good for the most people. That's the only reason any of us, left or right, take a political position.
Bull. A lot of people take a political position because they think it's the best for them personally. Most libertarians I know don't care so much about what's best for everyone as long as they're left alone to do what they like.
posted by anapestic at 7:01 AM on March 14, 2002
Bull. A lot of people take a political position because they think it's the best for them personally. Most libertarians I know don't care so much about what's best for everyone as long as they're left alone to do what they like.
posted by anapestic at 7:01 AM on March 14, 2002
Anapestic, That's what I mean: Libertarians think it is best for everyone if everyone is left alone to do as they like. It's not necessarily a paradox.
posted by Faze at 7:09 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by Faze at 7:09 AM on March 14, 2002
Honest Libertarians admit that it's all about self-interest, and has nothing to do with "the greatest good for the greatest number."
posted by Fenriss at 7:12 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by Fenriss at 7:12 AM on March 14, 2002
I meant humanism, not humanitarianism.
I don't take a position, left or right, because I have no idea what creates the most good for the most people, or even think I should. I do have strong humanist sympathies, because it seems that caring for others works out well for me - egotistical humanism, if you will. Too much humanism is patronizing and arrogant, and that's where libertarianism comes in.
posted by liam at 7:24 AM on March 14, 2002
I don't take a position, left or right, because I have no idea what creates the most good for the most people, or even think I should. I do have strong humanist sympathies, because it seems that caring for others works out well for me - egotistical humanism, if you will. Too much humanism is patronizing and arrogant, and that's where libertarianism comes in.
posted by liam at 7:24 AM on March 14, 2002
Fenriss - Perhaps the "greatest good for the greatest number" is to be realized precisely by allowing every individual freedom to act with his own self interest in mind. Still no paradox there.
posted by syzygy at 7:24 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by syzygy at 7:24 AM on March 14, 2002
Honest Libertarians admit that it's all about self-interest, and has nothing to do with "the greatest good for the greatest number.
Yes ... and "honest" Democrats and Republicans would have to admit that their positions are all about "self-interest" too. They aren't going to vote for a party that they thinks is directly opposed to their self-interest, are they? Libertarians just don't attempt to dress it up in words like "common good", or try to pretend that they really don't think of themselves, but only of "greatest good for the greatest number".
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:34 AM on March 14, 2002
Yes ... and "honest" Democrats and Republicans would have to admit that their positions are all about "self-interest" too. They aren't going to vote for a party that they thinks is directly opposed to their self-interest, are they? Libertarians just don't attempt to dress it up in words like "common good", or try to pretend that they really don't think of themselves, but only of "greatest good for the greatest number".
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:34 AM on March 14, 2002
So far this article has not been discussed; I see only arguments about labels. I considered posting this but couldn't come up with a proper introduction yet.
In short, though, Dissent magazine is the intellectual venue of choice for the academic left, and Michael Walzel is the bad-boy contrarian socialist who's actually chummy with people that the rest of the masthead consider practically war criminals. An academic Hitchens, if you will. To give you an idea of the dynamic involved. Walzel, here, is speaking as an iconoclastic leftist, to the left. Given this form of address, he is echoing statements that many liberals who find themselves supporting the war would agree with -- that, for example, the reflexive anti-imperialism of the left may not apply when your country is attacked.
posted by dhartung at 7:47 AM on March 14, 2002
In short, though, Dissent magazine is the intellectual venue of choice for the academic left, and Michael Walzel is the bad-boy contrarian socialist who's actually chummy with people that the rest of the masthead consider practically war criminals. An academic Hitchens, if you will. To give you an idea of the dynamic involved. Walzel, here, is speaking as an iconoclastic leftist, to the left. Given this form of address, he is echoing statements that many liberals who find themselves supporting the war would agree with -- that, for example, the reflexive anti-imperialism of the left may not apply when your country is attacked.
posted by dhartung at 7:47 AM on March 14, 2002
Great article, though I disagree with some of the writer's characterizations, this in particular:
But it was suddenly clear, even to many opponents of the war, that the Taliban regime had been the biggest obstacle to any serious effort to address the looming humanitarian crisis, and it was the American war that removed the obstacle.
Well no, many, if not most, on the left had supported the isolation and removal of the Taliban from the moment they came to power. Many of the right wing war drum beaters didn't get into the act until it was time to bomb somebody, though I'm glad they've lately developed some concern for human rights.
Question: if the Taliban had handed over bin Laden as Bush demanded, would we have left them in power? It is likely that we would have. It's better that they didn't, of course, as it allowed the U.S. to baptize the whole effort as "humanitarian intervention", and also gave the Afghan people a chance at democracy.
Speaking for myself, I recognized that military operations to go in and get bin Laden were inevitable. I also knew that facts on the ground wouldn't change until there were troops on the ground, and the excessive bombing was a politically expedient way to get more bang for our buck.
Given this form of address, he is echoing statements that many liberals who find themselves supporting the war would agree with -- that, for example, the reflexive anti-imperialism of the left may not apply when your country is attacked.
I agree, though I don't think I would necessarily characterize it as anti imperialism. The hard left notion of "if the U.S. does it, it's bad" is obviously just as silly as the neo-conservative "if the U.S. does it, it's good, because the U.S. is good," as if the U.S. were a comic book superhero/villain, rather than a country, run by people, people who have sometimes made horrible choices and done questionable and yes evil things for various reasons. This shouldn't stop anyone from examining the current situation on its own merits, as it shouldn't stop anyone from providing historical context for the U.S.'s inhumane misadventures in the past.
posted by Ty Webb at 7:59 AM on March 14, 2002
But it was suddenly clear, even to many opponents of the war, that the Taliban regime had been the biggest obstacle to any serious effort to address the looming humanitarian crisis, and it was the American war that removed the obstacle.
Well no, many, if not most, on the left had supported the isolation and removal of the Taliban from the moment they came to power. Many of the right wing war drum beaters didn't get into the act until it was time to bomb somebody, though I'm glad they've lately developed some concern for human rights.
Question: if the Taliban had handed over bin Laden as Bush demanded, would we have left them in power? It is likely that we would have. It's better that they didn't, of course, as it allowed the U.S. to baptize the whole effort as "humanitarian intervention", and also gave the Afghan people a chance at democracy.
Speaking for myself, I recognized that military operations to go in and get bin Laden were inevitable. I also knew that facts on the ground wouldn't change until there were troops on the ground, and the excessive bombing was a politically expedient way to get more bang for our buck.
Given this form of address, he is echoing statements that many liberals who find themselves supporting the war would agree with -- that, for example, the reflexive anti-imperialism of the left may not apply when your country is attacked.
I agree, though I don't think I would necessarily characterize it as anti imperialism. The hard left notion of "if the U.S. does it, it's bad" is obviously just as silly as the neo-conservative "if the U.S. does it, it's good, because the U.S. is good," as if the U.S. were a comic book superhero/villain, rather than a country, run by people, people who have sometimes made horrible choices and done questionable and yes evil things for various reasons. This shouldn't stop anyone from examining the current situation on its own merits, as it shouldn't stop anyone from providing historical context for the U.S.'s inhumane misadventures in the past.
posted by Ty Webb at 7:59 AM on March 14, 2002
Perhaps the "greatest good for the greatest number" is to be realized precisely by allowing every individual freedom to act with his own self interest in mind. Still no paradox there.
Well, all rational politics appeal to enlightened self interest-Marxist politics included. The general Marxist idea is that capitalists look after their own self interest (which is to minimize wages and keep control of key decisions concerning a factory); the only way that workers can look after their own self interest is to cooperate and act collectively against the people who own the means of production. Especially since the odds against a simple worker becoming a capitalist are slim.
As for the article, it has some interesting points but it creates too many straw men in the process- mainly because it fails to acknowledge the real issues that motivate the American left and adopts the arguments of its critics unquestioningly.
Also let me note that when the US left decries "free market" globalization demanding protection of US jobs (which seems a rather "patriotic" stance) it is condemned as "populist". When it condemns US involvement in Kosovo or Afghanistan it is branded as "unpatriotic". Either way it loses...
posted by talos at 8:06 AM on March 14, 2002
Well, all rational politics appeal to enlightened self interest-Marxist politics included. The general Marxist idea is that capitalists look after their own self interest (which is to minimize wages and keep control of key decisions concerning a factory); the only way that workers can look after their own self interest is to cooperate and act collectively against the people who own the means of production. Especially since the odds against a simple worker becoming a capitalist are slim.
As for the article, it has some interesting points but it creates too many straw men in the process- mainly because it fails to acknowledge the real issues that motivate the American left and adopts the arguments of its critics unquestioningly.
Also let me note that when the US left decries "free market" globalization demanding protection of US jobs (which seems a rather "patriotic" stance) it is condemned as "populist". When it condemns US involvement in Kosovo or Afghanistan it is branded as "unpatriotic". Either way it loses...
posted by talos at 8:06 AM on March 14, 2002
Either way it loses...
Precisely. The left loses. It's a lost cause. The collapse of Marxism dissolved the intellectual underpinnings of the left. Now it's supported solely by a kind of emotional hot air, and collapses at the merest touch of a reasoning finger.
posted by Faze at 8:36 AM on March 14, 2002
Precisely. The left loses. It's a lost cause. The collapse of Marxism dissolved the intellectual underpinnings of the left. Now it's supported solely by a kind of emotional hot air, and collapses at the merest touch of a reasoning finger.
posted by Faze at 8:36 AM on March 14, 2002
Faze: when exactly did Marxism collapse? If you are referring to the collapse of the Soviet Union, that system had precious little to do with Marx or Marxism.
As for the left itself, it has created in the past the enlightened democracies of the European North and can be found alive and well in the mountains of Chiapas, the president's office in Venezuela and the streets of Genoa, among other places.
As for the reasoning finger, I have never personally seen a reasoned critique of the left from a "conservative" point of view, so I can't really tell.
posted by talos at 8:48 AM on March 14, 2002
As for the left itself, it has created in the past the enlightened democracies of the European North and can be found alive and well in the mountains of Chiapas, the president's office in Venezuela and the streets of Genoa, among other places.
As for the reasoning finger, I have never personally seen a reasoned critique of the left from a "conservative" point of view, so I can't really tell.
posted by talos at 8:48 AM on March 14, 2002
The collapse of Marxism dissolved the intellectual underpinnings of the left
the article is ok. it points out many failures in the left wing. however, the main principles of the ideology have not changed, they are still there, and can be taken by anyone, their politics can still be put on practice.
the real value of the left in this moment is the hope to change what it is being done wrong by the government
posted by trismegisto at 9:05 AM on March 14, 2002
the article is ok. it points out many failures in the left wing. however, the main principles of the ideology have not changed, they are still there, and can be taken by anyone, their politics can still be put on practice.
the real value of the left in this moment is the hope to change what it is being done wrong by the government
posted by trismegisto at 9:05 AM on March 14, 2002
The biggest problem with the left in America is that it does a very poor job of selling its ideology to the pragmatic middle. Clinton knew how to do it, but once a Republican enters the White House they begin to wimp out.
posted by owillis at 9:10 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by owillis at 9:10 AM on March 14, 2002
Somehow owillis, I don't think Dissent's readers count Clinton among the left...
posted by talos at 9:12 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by talos at 9:12 AM on March 14, 2002
Today, compared to the 20th Century, intellectuals don't really take Marxism seriously. Any more than Freudianism. Both are ingenious intellectual systems, which have produced (amazingly, since both Freud and Marx wrote in German) beautiful writing (including most of Freud, and Marx's "Communist Manifesto" with its charming nostalgia for feudalism). No academic today could seriously cite Marx as an authority on economics, or reference the "labor theory of value" or argue about "ownership of the means of production" with a straight face. Of course a lot of people in high places still haven't yet gotten the news. Ronald Reagan never figured out that astrology was the bunk, either. And I doubt if the kids on the street in Genoa have actually read Marx, or sat through a grinding study of "Das Kapital" with dedicated Gus Hall-type Commie. (It's unlikely they ever read Marx's personal letters. He wasn't a nice man.) They, like the rest of the left, are caught up in a swirl of emotions, hormones, and (here comes Freud) a desire to kill "the father" that has nothing to do with the dusty political philosophical debates of the 19th century, or the industrial clashes of the 20th.
posted by Faze at 9:21 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by Faze at 9:21 AM on March 14, 2002
OK, Faze is just trolling at this point. How are you defining "the Left," Faze? Are you suggesting that there are no liberals anymore? Are you trying to assert that: collapse of USSR+ high approval rating for Rebulicans= absolutely no intelligent disagreement with Right-wing policies? Because that's completely laughable.
Look, I'm a pretty moderate-Left girl. I'm no Chomsky disciple, and I'm willing to listen to what people to the Right of me have to say. But I am still in a pretty good position to tell you with impunity that there really are Democratic senators, fiscal liberals and progressive think-tanks still in existence. Sheesh!
posted by Fenriss at 9:22 AM on March 14, 2002
Look, I'm a pretty moderate-Left girl. I'm no Chomsky disciple, and I'm willing to listen to what people to the Right of me have to say. But I am still in a pretty good position to tell you with impunity that there really are Democratic senators, fiscal liberals and progressive think-tanks still in existence. Sheesh!
posted by Fenriss at 9:22 AM on March 14, 2002
Waltzer is really a communitarian more than a leftist in the more traditional sense, so it's not surprising to see him criticizing the more orthodox left. I do agree with him that many on the left (as on the right) are too reflexive in applying their ideology. Certainly the denunciations of American actions abroad (particuarly post-911) without proposing plausible alternatives aren't winning the left much political support among the general public.
posted by boltman at 9:32 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by boltman at 9:32 AM on March 14, 2002
I read the article and enjoyed it. Thanks for posting it. It would be nice if more articles by the left were a lot less shrill and a lot more thoughtful like this one.
posted by revbrian at 9:41 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by revbrian at 9:41 AM on March 14, 2002
Marxism as an all-encompassing ideology is dead, no doubt. But an understanding of Marxist principles is useful, indeed necessary, for approaching and examining various situations from different points of view and according to different criteria. The same is true of Objectivism: Rand has some interesting ideas, and her philosophy is useful as another way of examining economics and politics, but if you try and take either pure Marxism or pure Objectivism as your controlling ideology, you're pretty much lost.
posted by Ty Webb at 9:43 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by Ty Webb at 9:43 AM on March 14, 2002
talos:
> I don't think Dissent's readers count Clinton among the
> left...
Fenriss:
> How are you defining "the Left," Faze? Are you
> suggesting that there are no liberals anymore?
The liberal left is people at the pinkish end of the Democratic party. The radical left is people who think Franklin Roosevelt was a bourgeois reactionary. I mean, sure he fought Hitler and all but he did just about nothing to support worldwide proletarian revolution. I imagine Dissent's audience as falling somewhere in between these.
posted by jfuller at 10:08 AM on March 14, 2002
> I don't think Dissent's readers count Clinton among the
> left...
Fenriss:
> How are you defining "the Left," Faze? Are you
> suggesting that there are no liberals anymore?
The liberal left is people at the pinkish end of the Democratic party. The radical left is people who think Franklin Roosevelt was a bourgeois reactionary. I mean, sure he fought Hitler and all but he did just about nothing to support worldwide proletarian revolution. I imagine Dissent's audience as falling somewhere in between these.
posted by jfuller at 10:08 AM on March 14, 2002
The colllective memory is so short, that nobody remembers when there were real Marxists walking around. You met them at parties. They wore buttons. People wouldn't say "I'm a liberal." No one would admit to THAT. They'd say "I'm a socialist" (especially if they were really a communist) or "I'm a Marxist." Hey, I was one of 'em. It impressed girls. But try walking up to someone now and announcing "I'm a Marxist." They'd collapse in laughter. As far as Marxist=leftist, that's actually quite true. If you don't accept Marx's neo-Hegelian class-struggle theory of history, with its implied teleology toward statelessness, what are you (the left) struggling about? Do you understand the history of your opinions? Or do you just think to yourself, "I'm not Republican, that's for sure. They're a bunch of sexless, middle-aged men in suits. So I must be, uh..., liberal?"
posted by Faze at 10:51 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by Faze at 10:51 AM on March 14, 2002
If you don't accept Marx's neo-Hegelian class-struggle theory of history, with its implied teleology toward statelessness, what are you (the left) struggling about?
i don't accept Marx's view of history. I don't like Hegel much. So that means...I'm a Republican by definition?
I don't understand.
posted by boltman at 11:57 AM on March 14, 2002
i don't accept Marx's view of history. I don't like Hegel much. So that means...I'm a Republican by definition?
I don't understand.
posted by boltman at 11:57 AM on March 14, 2002
The biggest problem with the left in America is that it does a very poor job of selling its ideology to the pragmatic middle. Clinton knew how to do it, but once a Republican enters the White House they begin to wimp out.
I don't agree with that. Clinton campaigned as more of a centrist, wrapping his ideas in a sort of leftist rhetoric. When elected, he moved even more to the center/right, strategically co-opting a lot of Republican ideas and, I think, ultimately relinquishing any claim to "leftism." Bush, on the other hand, campaigned from the center and, once elected, swung hard right.
posted by Ty Webb at 12:02 PM on March 14, 2002
I don't agree with that. Clinton campaigned as more of a centrist, wrapping his ideas in a sort of leftist rhetoric. When elected, he moved even more to the center/right, strategically co-opting a lot of Republican ideas and, I think, ultimately relinquishing any claim to "leftism." Bush, on the other hand, campaigned from the center and, once elected, swung hard right.
posted by Ty Webb at 12:02 PM on March 14, 2002
I don't understand.
You must not understand the history of your opinions.
posted by Skot at 12:03 PM on March 14, 2002
You must not understand the history of your opinions.
posted by Skot at 12:03 PM on March 14, 2002
So the choices are Marxism or Conservatism. That's utterly absurd.
posted by Fenriss at 12:43 PM on March 14, 2002
posted by Fenriss at 12:43 PM on March 14, 2002
Why is it that after reading this thread, I suddenly can't get "Let's Do the Time Warp Again" out of my head?
posted by aaron at 1:30 PM on March 14, 2002
posted by aaron at 1:30 PM on March 14, 2002
Walzer's views seemed pretty reasonable to me, but I think the "Left" he is referring to and preaching to is a very small and extreme portion of the population. Most of my friends & family would probably call themselves liberals, but I can't think of a one who "blamed America first" after September 11th. For that matter, I don't think too many of them practice "politics of guilt and resentment." Co-opting the term "Left" to describe the folks who do is kind of like identifying "conservative" as equalling Pat Buchanan. C'mon folks, when you go looking for a place to live, you have some choices besides the North and South Poles. Check out the in-between!
For myself, it never made sense to try to figure out the correct "liberal" or "conservative" or "liberterian" agenda to live by. I have a collection of values that I think are important and I recognize that in real world situations any of these values can end up being in conflict with each other, so in each situation I try to weigh up which values are most relevant based on the facts and go from there. Once you start trying to fight for the "Democratic" or "Republican" or "Marxist" or whatever side, you're no longer trying to determine what's right, you're playing a sport & trying to get a win for your team.
posted by tdismukes at 1:34 PM on March 14, 2002
For myself, it never made sense to try to figure out the correct "liberal" or "conservative" or "liberterian" agenda to live by. I have a collection of values that I think are important and I recognize that in real world situations any of these values can end up being in conflict with each other, so in each situation I try to weigh up which values are most relevant based on the facts and go from there. Once you start trying to fight for the "Democratic" or "Republican" or "Marxist" or whatever side, you're no longer trying to determine what's right, you're playing a sport & trying to get a win for your team.
posted by tdismukes at 1:34 PM on March 14, 2002
> But try walking up to someone now and announcing "I'm
> a Marxist." They'd collapse in laughter.
It's all because of National Lampoon's Che Guevara pie-in-face poster.
posted by jfuller at 1:44 PM on March 14, 2002
> a Marxist." They'd collapse in laughter.
It's all because of National Lampoon's Che Guevara pie-in-face poster.
posted by jfuller at 1:44 PM on March 14, 2002
If you don't accept Marx's neo-Hegelian class-struggle theory of history, with its implied teleology toward statelessness, what are you (the left) struggling about?
And if you don't accept Jesus as your personal lord and savior, then why oppose terrorism? I just know I've heard this kind of rhetoric somewhere before.
posted by Fenriss at 1:47 PM on March 14, 2002
And if you don't accept Jesus as your personal lord and savior, then why oppose terrorism? I just know I've heard this kind of rhetoric somewhere before.
posted by Fenriss at 1:47 PM on March 14, 2002
First off, let's just for a moment quit pretending that Democrats are liberals and Republicans are conservatives. The party platforms of both parties stray so far from the liberal and conservative ideals that it's almost comical. Our political parties no longer represent political ideologies, they represent economic interests. The party platforms are shaped by whatever groups contributes the biggest checks.
Now, for me, personally, I live in Los Angeles which is solidly liberal in nature and so though I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, I find myself at odds more with liberals than I do with conservatives (though, mostly due to proximity not because I agree with conservatives more than liberals). My observation about liberals, or to be more accurate, "intellectual liberals" is that they are neither intellectual nor liberal. They think that being able to quote every word written or spoken by Chomsky makes them intellectual without seeing the irony that the whole idea behind question authority is not limited to the government but to so-called intellectuals as well. I also don't find people like Chomsky or those who worship him to be liberal either. I think that they think that they're liberal but they tend to have no interest in helping those in need that doesn't deliver to them great personal satisfaction. So they put the little "Bush Sucks" bumber sticker on their car because it makes them feel good about themselves. The claim to have an interest in this or that cause and maybe they even run a 10k or go to a rally to show support but they do it more to impress others than to actually help those in need. When you lay down the tough questions, when you look to the intellectual left for solutions, they have none.
The problem with the left, is that Sept. 11 exposed this ignorance. I have yet to hear one person opposed to the war offer a viable alternative. When you start corning a lefty into giving you an answer, it suddenly becomes an issue of whether or not the questioner is some gullible fool who is being tricked by the government. Solution? No. Constant streams of critisism? Yes. The truth is, that people are starting to apply common sense and realize that the left offers no solutions, just rhetoric and damnation of everything accepted by the rest of society. People are starting to recognize that the "intellectual left" sees the average human being as some revolting wretch beneath them who must be imparted with their wisdom.
And now that I've written all of the above, before I dig myself too deep a hole, let me just say, the left I speak about is not the JFK Democrat. It's not even the reasoned socialist. It's the pompous jackasses like Chomsky who are more interested in advancing their own social standing in academia and those who religiously and mindlessly devour their every word as the truth.
posted by billman at 2:28 PM on March 14, 2002
Now, for me, personally, I live in Los Angeles which is solidly liberal in nature and so though I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, I find myself at odds more with liberals than I do with conservatives (though, mostly due to proximity not because I agree with conservatives more than liberals). My observation about liberals, or to be more accurate, "intellectual liberals" is that they are neither intellectual nor liberal. They think that being able to quote every word written or spoken by Chomsky makes them intellectual without seeing the irony that the whole idea behind question authority is not limited to the government but to so-called intellectuals as well. I also don't find people like Chomsky or those who worship him to be liberal either. I think that they think that they're liberal but they tend to have no interest in helping those in need that doesn't deliver to them great personal satisfaction. So they put the little "Bush Sucks" bumber sticker on their car because it makes them feel good about themselves. The claim to have an interest in this or that cause and maybe they even run a 10k or go to a rally to show support but they do it more to impress others than to actually help those in need. When you lay down the tough questions, when you look to the intellectual left for solutions, they have none.
The problem with the left, is that Sept. 11 exposed this ignorance. I have yet to hear one person opposed to the war offer a viable alternative. When you start corning a lefty into giving you an answer, it suddenly becomes an issue of whether or not the questioner is some gullible fool who is being tricked by the government. Solution? No. Constant streams of critisism? Yes. The truth is, that people are starting to apply common sense and realize that the left offers no solutions, just rhetoric and damnation of everything accepted by the rest of society. People are starting to recognize that the "intellectual left" sees the average human being as some revolting wretch beneath them who must be imparted with their wisdom.
And now that I've written all of the above, before I dig myself too deep a hole, let me just say, the left I speak about is not the JFK Democrat. It's not even the reasoned socialist. It's the pompous jackasses like Chomsky who are more interested in advancing their own social standing in academia and those who religiously and mindlessly devour their every word as the truth.
posted by billman at 2:28 PM on March 14, 2002
billman: I would dispute your contention that LA is even hard liberal. Perhaps without the Valley it would swing that way, but the more conservative-moderate nature of the San Fernando Valley along with blacks who are socially conservative makes LA a lot more like the rest of America than say... San Francisco.
posted by owillis at 3:36 PM on March 14, 2002
posted by owillis at 3:36 PM on March 14, 2002
owillis: Didn't say it was as liberal as SF :-) And yes, I do live on the westside (grew up in the Valley though) so my day-to-day interactions are in the Venice/Santa Monica/Marina del Rey and surrounding areas.
posted by billman at 4:38 PM on March 14, 2002
posted by billman at 4:38 PM on March 14, 2002
billman: etc., etc.
Well, that's just plain ignorant. Who are these so-called liberals you people keep running into? What, are you basing your opinion of "liberals" only on bedraggled, Skinny Puppies wearing, spanging punk-ass 16-year-olds who mumble something about "The Man" before insulting you cuz you won't give them a quarter as you walk past a Taco Bell?
I think it's time we developed a new term for this type of logical fallacy: the Straw Liberal argument. And what's more, I think the vast majority of Americans are liberal, in fact, and it's high time liberals stopped running scared of being labeled as such and stood up for themselves and what they believe in, without shame- because the truth is, you probably believe in it too.
Anyway, I believe we were just about to talk about those pillars of conservatism, civic virtue and rhetorical restraint over at freerepublic.com...
It's the pompous jackasses like Chomsky who are more interested in advancing their own social standing in academia
Pompous jackasses!? What's this crap about Chomsky?! What makes you think you can see into his heart, to know that he must be insincere, must be just a self-interested scammer trying to get ahead in academia? God, man, are you yourself so damned jaded, so cynical and apathetic that you simply can't imagine the idea of someone who genuinely believes in democracy or civil liberties or human rights, that clearly they must be just a scammer spouting populist jibber jabber as a way to make a buck?! Hey, agree with him or disagree with him, but ad hominem bullshit is repugnant- is it truly unthinkable to you that he might actually believe in what he says, and for reasons that aren't purely self-interested? Because if that is what you believe, that attitude would say far more about you and your politics than it does about Chomsky...
posted by hincandenza at 4:45 PM on March 14, 2002
Well, that's just plain ignorant. Who are these so-called liberals you people keep running into? What, are you basing your opinion of "liberals" only on bedraggled, Skinny Puppies wearing, spanging punk-ass 16-year-olds who mumble something about "The Man" before insulting you cuz you won't give them a quarter as you walk past a Taco Bell?
I think it's time we developed a new term for this type of logical fallacy: the Straw Liberal argument. And what's more, I think the vast majority of Americans are liberal, in fact, and it's high time liberals stopped running scared of being labeled as such and stood up for themselves and what they believe in, without shame- because the truth is, you probably believe in it too.
Anyway, I believe we were just about to talk about those pillars of conservatism, civic virtue and rhetorical restraint over at freerepublic.com...
It's the pompous jackasses like Chomsky who are more interested in advancing their own social standing in academia
Pompous jackasses!? What's this crap about Chomsky?! What makes you think you can see into his heart, to know that he must be insincere, must be just a self-interested scammer trying to get ahead in academia? God, man, are you yourself so damned jaded, so cynical and apathetic that you simply can't imagine the idea of someone who genuinely believes in democracy or civil liberties or human rights, that clearly they must be just a scammer spouting populist jibber jabber as a way to make a buck?! Hey, agree with him or disagree with him, but ad hominem bullshit is repugnant- is it truly unthinkable to you that he might actually believe in what he says, and for reasons that aren't purely self-interested? Because if that is what you believe, that attitude would say far more about you and your politics than it does about Chomsky...
posted by hincandenza at 4:45 PM on March 14, 2002
hincandenza: I hate quoting myself but since you seemed to pass right over it:
I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal
In case you're unfamiliar with how that works, it means that I believe that the bigger the government gets, the more wasteful it becomes and that in order for the people to get the most out of every dollar they pay in taxes, many programs need to be moved back down to the state and local levels. See, the federal gov. spends $40,000 a year to give aid to each family living below the poverty level. For every dollar spent on education by the federal gov. only 13 cents or so makes it down to the classroom level. So, if anything, I actually consider myself more liberal than those who think in terms of socialism kind of liberalism because instead of simply throwing large amounts of money at problems, I would prefer that we actually correct the problems by better spending the money. Kind of like the work smarter, not harder line of thinking.
Has nothing to do with civic virture or rhetorical restraint, in fact, it's quite obvious you missed the point. Unlike Republican type conservatives who believe the government should keep out of your business unless you're gay or do stuff they don't like, I believe that they should stay out of your damn business, period. The government should do those things which it was empowered to do under the Constitution and no more.
What's this crap about Chomsky?!
The rest of my previous post speaks for itself.
posted by billman at 5:04 PM on March 14, 2002
I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal
In case you're unfamiliar with how that works, it means that I believe that the bigger the government gets, the more wasteful it becomes and that in order for the people to get the most out of every dollar they pay in taxes, many programs need to be moved back down to the state and local levels. See, the federal gov. spends $40,000 a year to give aid to each family living below the poverty level. For every dollar spent on education by the federal gov. only 13 cents or so makes it down to the classroom level. So, if anything, I actually consider myself more liberal than those who think in terms of socialism kind of liberalism because instead of simply throwing large amounts of money at problems, I would prefer that we actually correct the problems by better spending the money. Kind of like the work smarter, not harder line of thinking.
Has nothing to do with civic virture or rhetorical restraint, in fact, it's quite obvious you missed the point. Unlike Republican type conservatives who believe the government should keep out of your business unless you're gay or do stuff they don't like, I believe that they should stay out of your damn business, period. The government should do those things which it was empowered to do under the Constitution and no more.
What's this crap about Chomsky?!
The rest of my previous post speaks for itself.
posted by billman at 5:04 PM on March 14, 2002
I believe that the bigger the government gets, the more wasteful it becomes
very pithy. not true, but very pithy.
if we devolve everything to the states, you have 50 bureaucracies running the same program that was once run by one bureaucracy. how exactly is this more efficient?
posted by boltman at 5:23 PM on March 14, 2002
very pithy. not true, but very pithy.
if we devolve everything to the states, you have 50 bureaucracies running the same program that was once run by one bureaucracy. how exactly is this more efficient?
posted by boltman at 5:23 PM on March 14, 2002
Billman, concise and brilliant as always. Criticizing government spending dosen't make you Ebenezer Scrooge. I wouldn't mind taxes and large budgets so much if I thought the money was being spent with anything approaching efficiency.
Should we cut programs? Yes, we should cut ineffective programs. But ones that have proven to be effective, give all the money they need to be more effective.
posted by jonmc at 5:51 PM on March 14, 2002
Should we cut programs? Yes, we should cut ineffective programs. But ones that have proven to be effective, give all the money they need to be more effective.
posted by jonmc at 5:51 PM on March 14, 2002
billman: I actually consider myself more liberal than those who think in terms of socialism kind of liberalism because instead of simply throwing large amounts of money at problems, I would prefer that we actually correct the problems by better spending the money.
What, and "liberals" like myself don't? Hey, I'm socially liberal, fiscally moderate/liberal- money can be wasted by any organization suitably large, be it private multinational corporation or federal government. A little waste won't kill you, and on the whole money should be spent smartly and wisely. Sound familiar? That's the liberal viewpoint, isn't it? The libertarian argument for zero government is silly, and I think most people agree on this: a wholly compassionless society is one few people actually want to live in, hence popular support for "liberal" and even "socialist" programs like Social Security or unemployment insurance or help for the poor (provided it doesn't go overboard or get wasted).
The truth is I probably don't disagree with you much on a case by case basis- which is why I don't understand your need to so vociferously label "liberalism" or distance yourself from liberals. I mean, what the hell is the "socialism kind of liberalism"? Isn't the name for that simply "socialism"?
So I ask again: are you actually running into people who say things like "We need to waste money! I mean, really piss it down the drain! If we try, we could blow our entire budget on stupid shit! We need more bureaucracies! More government in our lives where they don't need to be and will just confuse things!"? Because that's how you paint "liberals" in your comments, and even the radical element isn't usually that whacked-out. Don't all liberals and all conservatives and all moderates want to spend money wisely? Or more particularly, are there those that specifically want to waste money pointlessly that you've been running into on the street?
I'd say that there are two types of people: those who think human beings have a moral imperative to among other things help those less fortunate than themselves, to look out for the other members of their tribe/ community/ city/ country/ species/ planet- and those who don't. The latter are actually a pretty fringe element, and not conservative or liberal (more bitter libertarian/nihilist than anything else); the vast group that is the rest of us mostly just quibble on whether a certain way of helping is working or useful. My point being that I'd call this vast group "liberals", for all the value labels like liberal and conservative have.
Oh yeah, and you completely ignored the issue of why you framed Chomsky as some shameless insincere self-promoter without any evidence to back it up. I would like to know why you say that about a man you've probably never met...
posted by hincandenza at 7:33 PM on March 14, 2002
What, and "liberals" like myself don't? Hey, I'm socially liberal, fiscally moderate/liberal- money can be wasted by any organization suitably large, be it private multinational corporation or federal government. A little waste won't kill you, and on the whole money should be spent smartly and wisely. Sound familiar? That's the liberal viewpoint, isn't it? The libertarian argument for zero government is silly, and I think most people agree on this: a wholly compassionless society is one few people actually want to live in, hence popular support for "liberal" and even "socialist" programs like Social Security or unemployment insurance or help for the poor (provided it doesn't go overboard or get wasted).
The truth is I probably don't disagree with you much on a case by case basis- which is why I don't understand your need to so vociferously label "liberalism" or distance yourself from liberals. I mean, what the hell is the "socialism kind of liberalism"? Isn't the name for that simply "socialism"?
So I ask again: are you actually running into people who say things like "We need to waste money! I mean, really piss it down the drain! If we try, we could blow our entire budget on stupid shit! We need more bureaucracies! More government in our lives where they don't need to be and will just confuse things!"? Because that's how you paint "liberals" in your comments, and even the radical element isn't usually that whacked-out. Don't all liberals and all conservatives and all moderates want to spend money wisely? Or more particularly, are there those that specifically want to waste money pointlessly that you've been running into on the street?
I'd say that there are two types of people: those who think human beings have a moral imperative to among other things help those less fortunate than themselves, to look out for the other members of their tribe/ community/ city/ country/ species/ planet- and those who don't. The latter are actually a pretty fringe element, and not conservative or liberal (more bitter libertarian/nihilist than anything else); the vast group that is the rest of us mostly just quibble on whether a certain way of helping is working or useful. My point being that I'd call this vast group "liberals", for all the value labels like liberal and conservative have.
Oh yeah, and you completely ignored the issue of why you framed Chomsky as some shameless insincere self-promoter without any evidence to back it up. I would like to know why you say that about a man you've probably never met...
posted by hincandenza at 7:33 PM on March 14, 2002
Solutions- like nuclear disarmament, biodiesel, toxics reduction, alternative energy, "no human being is illegal just because an employer wants someone cheap and expendable"? Suddenly the "mainstream" USG is recognizing the need to clean up the system, and it's taking up topics that used to be considered "left" just a few months ago. A strong public health system is now an anti-terrorist rather than a socialistic proposition.
There is no single "left." The oversimplification of "anti-war" from the Viet Nam era no longer holds. Marxist frameworks may have to be replaced (or at least supplemented) by social networks research and analysis as the world becomes more complex. What was the "left" is now pacifists, Greens, environmentalists, Liberation Theology Catholics, union organizers, anti-nuclear activists, third world solidarity, non-Western religions and spirituality, organic agriculture, social work and community organizing, ethnic politics, sexual identity politics, AIDS activism, cyberpolitics and privacy advocates, academics with an interest in foreign policy ... There are still a few Marxist groups out there, but that's not where the young energy is headed. The young energy is behind anti-racism and "anarchism" as a strategy for confronting globalization. Anarchism, or the networked view of activism, appears neither in the article nor in our discussion.
The folks at Dissent need to spend more time around young people, and get turned on to the diversity on the Internet. It's a new world out there.
posted by sheauga at 9:10 PM on March 14, 2002
There is no single "left." The oversimplification of "anti-war" from the Viet Nam era no longer holds. Marxist frameworks may have to be replaced (or at least supplemented) by social networks research and analysis as the world becomes more complex. What was the "left" is now pacifists, Greens, environmentalists, Liberation Theology Catholics, union organizers, anti-nuclear activists, third world solidarity, non-Western religions and spirituality, organic agriculture, social work and community organizing, ethnic politics, sexual identity politics, AIDS activism, cyberpolitics and privacy advocates, academics with an interest in foreign policy ... There are still a few Marxist groups out there, but that's not where the young energy is headed. The young energy is behind anti-racism and "anarchism" as a strategy for confronting globalization. Anarchism, or the networked view of activism, appears neither in the article nor in our discussion.
The folks at Dissent need to spend more time around young people, and get turned on to the diversity on the Internet. It's a new world out there.
posted by sheauga at 9:10 PM on March 14, 2002
sheauga-the diversity of the groups and movements you mention back up the common assertion that the traditional labels of "left" and "right" no longer apply or even make sense in today's world.
The groups in your comment are working towards very different and sometimes antagonistic goals. Also, when someone decries Marxism, it dosen't necessarily mean that they support a totally unshackled free market, just that they acknowledge that large-scale applied Marxism has been a dismal, murderous failure. Thus, to associate groups doing legitimate activist activity with the term "left" with all it's Marxist associations is political suicide and does these groups a disservice.
posted by jonmc at 10:49 PM on March 14, 2002
The groups in your comment are working towards very different and sometimes antagonistic goals. Also, when someone decries Marxism, it dosen't necessarily mean that they support a totally unshackled free market, just that they acknowledge that large-scale applied Marxism has been a dismal, murderous failure. Thus, to associate groups doing legitimate activist activity with the term "left" with all it's Marxist associations is political suicide and does these groups a disservice.
posted by jonmc at 10:49 PM on March 14, 2002
Faze: If you don't accept Marx's neo-Hegelian class-struggle theory of history, with its implied teleology toward statelessness, what are you (the left) struggling about?
Good question: If you reject the basis of leftist thought, then why be a leftist? Or to turn it around, if Hegel/Marx is not the intellectual basis of leftist thought (and leftist action), then what is? I still haven't heard a good answer here.
Fenriss: So the choices are Marxism or Conservatism. That's utterly absurd.
No, there are plenty of choices besides Marxism or Conservatism, because there are plenty of starting points besides theirs. Start with one, and you get Marxism. Start with another (maybe Burke plus a dash of Empiricism) and you get Conservatism. Start with yet another (Spengler) and you get Fascism. And so on: Bentham, Nietzsche, whatever. Where you start influences where you end, and there are many choices of places to start.
To return to Faze, he's asking "If you reject X's starting point, then why be an X?"
posted by Hieronymous Coward at 1:38 AM on March 15, 2002
Good question: If you reject the basis of leftist thought, then why be a leftist? Or to turn it around, if Hegel/Marx is not the intellectual basis of leftist thought (and leftist action), then what is? I still haven't heard a good answer here.
Fenriss: So the choices are Marxism or Conservatism. That's utterly absurd.
No, there are plenty of choices besides Marxism or Conservatism, because there are plenty of starting points besides theirs. Start with one, and you get Marxism. Start with another (maybe Burke plus a dash of Empiricism) and you get Conservatism. Start with yet another (Spengler) and you get Fascism. And so on: Bentham, Nietzsche, whatever. Where you start influences where you end, and there are many choices of places to start.
To return to Faze, he's asking "If you reject X's starting point, then why be an X?"
posted by Hieronymous Coward at 1:38 AM on March 15, 2002
By the way, that was an interesting article. Thanks, Postroad.
posted by Hieronymous Coward at 1:41 AM on March 15, 2002
posted by Hieronymous Coward at 1:41 AM on March 15, 2002
If you don't accept Marx's neo-Hegelian class-struggle theory of history, with its implied teleology toward statelessness, what are you (the left) struggling about?
Marx's teleology is probably the most annoying luggage of his Hegelian origins. It is, of course, quite possible to struggle for the same or similar ideals without considering a "proletarian revolution" necessary and unavoidable. Also there are at least two more historical currents that have played an important role in "left" thought: Anarchism and Social Democracy.
One should note that Marx's idea of treating the economy (and material civilization) as the determining factor in history is quite separate logically from his teleology and indeed his support of the working class. There are a number of scholars who- although not leftist politically- use this basic idea in their work. (Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel is a great example of a book which subscribe's thoroughly to a materialistic view of history- although the author is not, to my knowledge, a leftist.)
Finally, a note about Chomsky (who is most definitely not a Marxist): it is incredible how many negative comments this man receives for his political views, without a single person offering a quote, or an article by Chomsky himself to back their criticism. One would be better able to adress the criticism were it a bit more concrete.
posted by talos at 5:47 AM on March 15, 2002
Marx's teleology is probably the most annoying luggage of his Hegelian origins. It is, of course, quite possible to struggle for the same or similar ideals without considering a "proletarian revolution" necessary and unavoidable. Also there are at least two more historical currents that have played an important role in "left" thought: Anarchism and Social Democracy.
One should note that Marx's idea of treating the economy (and material civilization) as the determining factor in history is quite separate logically from his teleology and indeed his support of the working class. There are a number of scholars who- although not leftist politically- use this basic idea in their work. (Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel is a great example of a book which subscribe's thoroughly to a materialistic view of history- although the author is not, to my knowledge, a leftist.)
Finally, a note about Chomsky (who is most definitely not a Marxist): it is incredible how many negative comments this man receives for his political views, without a single person offering a quote, or an article by Chomsky himself to back their criticism. One would be better able to adress the criticism were it a bit more concrete.
posted by talos at 5:47 AM on March 15, 2002
Very few people quote Chomsky in this type of argument because quoting Chomsky means you'd have to re-read him, and no one wants to go through THAT again. As regards to Marx, one might say that materialism minus class struggle (or economics) doesn't equal social democracy, but may equal biology. Is Richard Dawkins the new Marx? He's got a darn good theory.
Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" is not, indeed, leftist in any way that we traditionally recognize the term, but he is an avatar of the developing politics of identity/anti-imperialism that is slowly replacing the left. His thesis that the West did not achieve wealth and dominance because of any intrinsic qualities of its culture, but did so purely as a result of dumb luck, makes "Guns/Steel" a key text for this movement. However, the identity/anti-imperialism movement still waits for the writer and thinker who can give it a grand Marxist-style quasi-theological theory. Right now identity/anti-imperialists, like the old/new left they are roughly growing out of, aren't quite sure why they're so angry, or why they believe and act the way they do. Maybe that's why no one's impressed. But give 'em a theory, and watch 'em go!
posted by Faze at 9:02 AM on March 15, 2002
Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" is not, indeed, leftist in any way that we traditionally recognize the term, but he is an avatar of the developing politics of identity/anti-imperialism that is slowly replacing the left. His thesis that the West did not achieve wealth and dominance because of any intrinsic qualities of its culture, but did so purely as a result of dumb luck, makes "Guns/Steel" a key text for this movement. However, the identity/anti-imperialism movement still waits for the writer and thinker who can give it a grand Marxist-style quasi-theological theory. Right now identity/anti-imperialists, like the old/new left they are roughly growing out of, aren't quite sure why they're so angry, or why they believe and act the way they do. Maybe that's why no one's impressed. But give 'em a theory, and watch 'em go!
posted by Faze at 9:02 AM on March 15, 2002
Right now identity/anti-imperialists, like the old/new left they are roughly growing out of, aren't quite sure why they're so angry, or why they believe and act the way they do. Maybe that's why no one's impressed. But give 'em a theory, and watch 'em go!
I'm not sure why I'm so angry. Hell, I don't even know why I believe what I do or act the way I do. I wish I had a useful theory. Then I could really go!
Very few people quote Chomsky in this type of argument because quoting Chomsky means you'd have to re-read him, and no one wants to go through THAT again.
Well, I don't quote Chomsky in this type of argument because outside of linguistic concerns, I happen to think he's a runny-mouthed crackpot. But what do I know? I'm still angry for some unidentifiable reason!
Also, who are all these identity/anti-imperialism poseurs who are infiltrating my parties? I certainly didn't invite them.
Maybe that's why no one's impressed.
Shucks. I really wanted to impresseveryone Faze.
posted by Skot at 9:31 AM on March 15, 2002
I'm not sure why I'm so angry. Hell, I don't even know why I believe what I do or act the way I do. I wish I had a useful theory. Then I could really go!
Very few people quote Chomsky in this type of argument because quoting Chomsky means you'd have to re-read him, and no one wants to go through THAT again.
Well, I don't quote Chomsky in this type of argument because outside of linguistic concerns, I happen to think he's a runny-mouthed crackpot. But what do I know? I'm still angry for some unidentifiable reason!
Also, who are all these identity/anti-imperialism poseurs who are infiltrating my parties? I certainly didn't invite them.
Maybe that's why no one's impressed.
Shucks. I really wanted to impress
posted by Skot at 9:31 AM on March 15, 2002
Very few people quote Chomsky in this type of argument because quoting Chomsky means you'd have to re-read him, and no one wants to go through THAT again.
That is an, errr... original way of arguing against someone.
His thesis that the West did not achieve wealth and dominance because of any intrinsic qualities of its culture, but did so purely as a result of dumb luck, makes "Guns/Steel" a key text for this movement.
Dumb luck, as you call it, means geographic / historical contigencies and yes, coming from the physical sciences myself, I find this explanation much more, well, scientific than the, quite ahistorical, view that somehow "superior cultures" achieve dominance. The Greek culture had way more intrinsic qualities than the (barbarian basically) Roman, but it was subjugated to Rome nevertheless. Ditto the Germanic tribes vs. the Romans etc.
posted by talos at 9:39 AM on March 15, 2002
That is an, errr... original way of arguing against someone.
His thesis that the West did not achieve wealth and dominance because of any intrinsic qualities of its culture, but did so purely as a result of dumb luck, makes "Guns/Steel" a key text for this movement.
Dumb luck, as you call it, means geographic / historical contigencies and yes, coming from the physical sciences myself, I find this explanation much more, well, scientific than the, quite ahistorical, view that somehow "superior cultures" achieve dominance. The Greek culture had way more intrinsic qualities than the (barbarian basically) Roman, but it was subjugated to Rome nevertheless. Ditto the Germanic tribes vs. the Romans etc.
posted by talos at 9:39 AM on March 15, 2002
Chomsky = Ayn Rand. If you read him and like him, then you love him. If you don't, you end up hating him. People with no middle ground. More opinion than fact obviously.
posted by thirteen at 10:32 AM on March 15, 2002
posted by thirteen at 10:32 AM on March 15, 2002
this thread has gotten very silly.
the problem is that the left/right distinction is a dichotomy. You can only be left or right (or in the middle). The terms are useful as a sort of political shorthand, but pretty meaningless on a philosophical level.
Communitarians like Waltzer support "leftist" policies, but the premises on which they base their support are very different than those of marxists or socialists. Other "leftist" thinkers might take more of a Rawlsian contractarian approach, which also owes little to Marx in its basic premises. Hell, there even the Catholic Church and some evangelical Christian groups support "leftist" economic goals. They base their "leftist" beliefs on ideas of natural law.
One final pet peeve of mine: If you actually read Edmund Burke (which I suspect very few people who quote him have), there very little to suggest that he would be sympathetic with the modern "right". Basically, he was too much of a statist to be a Jack Kemp free-market type right-winger and too much of a pragmaitist to be a Jerry Falwell moral-majority type right winger. If anything, he'd probably be a New Democrat if he were alive today. The intellectual precursors for the modern right are Adam Smith, Milton Freidman, and old-school Christian theologians.
posted by boltman at 11:39 AM on March 15, 2002
the problem is that the left/right distinction is a dichotomy. You can only be left or right (or in the middle). The terms are useful as a sort of political shorthand, but pretty meaningless on a philosophical level.
Communitarians like Waltzer support "leftist" policies, but the premises on which they base their support are very different than those of marxists or socialists. Other "leftist" thinkers might take more of a Rawlsian contractarian approach, which also owes little to Marx in its basic premises. Hell, there even the Catholic Church and some evangelical Christian groups support "leftist" economic goals. They base their "leftist" beliefs on ideas of natural law.
One final pet peeve of mine: If you actually read Edmund Burke (which I suspect very few people who quote him have), there very little to suggest that he would be sympathetic with the modern "right". Basically, he was too much of a statist to be a Jack Kemp free-market type right-winger and too much of a pragmaitist to be a Jerry Falwell moral-majority type right winger. If anything, he'd probably be a New Democrat if he were alive today. The intellectual precursors for the modern right are Adam Smith, Milton Freidman, and old-school Christian theologians.
posted by boltman at 11:39 AM on March 15, 2002
hincandenza: I'm sort of at a loss because either I think I have been explicit on this point yet you seem to ask me to explain it yet again. I said, and again I'll have to quote myself:
the left I speak about is not the JFK Democrat. It's not even the reasoned socialist.
It might be easier if I abandoned the term "left" or "liberal" and use the term I actually prefer; "the enlightened." I think Thomas Sowell prefers "the annointed" but personally, I go with "the enlightened." So, who are "the enlightened" and why do I dislike them? The enlightened usually live in a fantasy world. Some in academia. Some in literature (usually novelists). The common theme though is that those who don't understand them obviously are of inferior intellect or unable to open their minds to see the light. Now, this wouldn't normally bother me if it weren't for the fact that they are typically incongruent and willingly and knowlingly use corrupt research on which to base their ideologies. Now, the reason this gets under my skin is because they are able to sell it so well and in doing so, tend to take us farther from our goals than closer to them. Research done with the conclusions already decided. Willingness to overlook common sense explinations for statistical deviations.
Now, I could go into a list of examples and beat certain points over the head but I won't because of the likelyhood of steering this thread even more off-topic than it already is. The bottom line here is that, IMHO, the enlightened are not interested in solving problems. They simply play off the emotions of people who wish to help. They are no better than some on the far right end of the spectrum who advocate racism as the solution to society's ills in that they both preach a perfect world, a nirvana, if we can just remove all of these petty little problems like . . . facts and human nature.
That's the liberal viewpoint, isn't it? The libertarian argument for zero government is silly
No, I know of few people who say "Let's waste money" but I do know of plenty of liberals (especially those who are disciples of the enlightened) who wish to throw money at problems that money alone won't solve. But when you question the effectiveness of treating the symptom without addressing the cause, liberals are all too quick to paint you into a corner as being against the poor or against education or ??? Perhaps this is simply the manifestation of our instant gratification culture. I don't want to diet and excersice, Doc. Isn't there some pill I could take to drop the weight? Gee, I don't really want to make any sacrafices to solve this problem. Can't we just create some sort of government agency that deals with it? I don't really feel like being bothered with running around checking up on my kids and making sure they do their homework and get good grades. Can't we just give more money to the schools and let the teachers deal with that?
And I'm not really sure where you got the libertarian thing. I don't consider myself one and very rarely vote libertarian.
I would like to know why you say that about a man you've probably never met...
Uh, when did meeting someone become requisite for having ideas about them. Has Chomsky met everyone he has expressed his negative ideas about?
As someone else mentioned, as a linguist I've seen enough of his work to tip my hat to him for his insights but beyond that I think he tends to write more to impress people with how enlightened he is rather than attempting to propose realistic, workable ideas.
posted by billman at 1:06 PM on March 15, 2002
the left I speak about is not the JFK Democrat. It's not even the reasoned socialist.
It might be easier if I abandoned the term "left" or "liberal" and use the term I actually prefer; "the enlightened." I think Thomas Sowell prefers "the annointed" but personally, I go with "the enlightened." So, who are "the enlightened" and why do I dislike them? The enlightened usually live in a fantasy world. Some in academia. Some in literature (usually novelists). The common theme though is that those who don't understand them obviously are of inferior intellect or unable to open their minds to see the light. Now, this wouldn't normally bother me if it weren't for the fact that they are typically incongruent and willingly and knowlingly use corrupt research on which to base their ideologies. Now, the reason this gets under my skin is because they are able to sell it so well and in doing so, tend to take us farther from our goals than closer to them. Research done with the conclusions already decided. Willingness to overlook common sense explinations for statistical deviations.
Now, I could go into a list of examples and beat certain points over the head but I won't because of the likelyhood of steering this thread even more off-topic than it already is. The bottom line here is that, IMHO, the enlightened are not interested in solving problems. They simply play off the emotions of people who wish to help. They are no better than some on the far right end of the spectrum who advocate racism as the solution to society's ills in that they both preach a perfect world, a nirvana, if we can just remove all of these petty little problems like . . . facts and human nature.
That's the liberal viewpoint, isn't it? The libertarian argument for zero government is silly
No, I know of few people who say "Let's waste money" but I do know of plenty of liberals (especially those who are disciples of the enlightened) who wish to throw money at problems that money alone won't solve. But when you question the effectiveness of treating the symptom without addressing the cause, liberals are all too quick to paint you into a corner as being against the poor or against education or ??? Perhaps this is simply the manifestation of our instant gratification culture. I don't want to diet and excersice, Doc. Isn't there some pill I could take to drop the weight? Gee, I don't really want to make any sacrafices to solve this problem. Can't we just create some sort of government agency that deals with it? I don't really feel like being bothered with running around checking up on my kids and making sure they do their homework and get good grades. Can't we just give more money to the schools and let the teachers deal with that?
And I'm not really sure where you got the libertarian thing. I don't consider myself one and very rarely vote libertarian.
I would like to know why you say that about a man you've probably never met...
Uh, when did meeting someone become requisite for having ideas about them. Has Chomsky met everyone he has expressed his negative ideas about?
As someone else mentioned, as a linguist I've seen enough of his work to tip my hat to him for his insights but beyond that I think he tends to write more to impress people with how enlightened he is rather than attempting to propose realistic, workable ideas.
posted by billman at 1:06 PM on March 15, 2002
hincandenza: I'm sort of at a loss because either I think I have been explicit on this point yet you seem to ask me to explain it yet again. I said, and again I'll have to quote myself:
the left I speak about is not the JFK Democrat. It's not even the reasoned socialist.
It might be easier if I abandoned the term "left" or "liberal" and use the term I actually prefer; "the enlightened." I think Thomas Sowell prefers "the annointed" but personally, I go with "the enlightened." So, who are "the enlightened" and why do I dislike them? The enlightened usually live in a fantasy world. Some in academia. Some in literature (usually novelists). The common theme though is that those who don't understand them obviously are of inferior intellect or unable to open their minds to see the light. Now, this wouldn't normally bother me if it weren't for the fact that they are typically incongruent and willingly and knowlingly use corrupt research on which to base their ideologies. Now, the reason this gets under my skin is because they are able to sell it so well and in doing so, tend to take us farther from our goals than closer to them. Research done with the conclusions already decided. Willingness to overlook common sense explinations for statistical deviations.
Now, I could go into a list of examples and beat certain points over the head but I won't because of the likelyhood of steering this thread even more off-topic than it already is. The bottom line here is that, IMHO, the enlightened are not interested in solving problems. They simply play off the emotions of people who wish to help. They are no better than some on the far right end of the spectrum who advocate racism as the solution to society's ills in that they both preach a perfect world, a nirvana, if we can just remove all of these petty little problems like . . . facts and human nature.
That's the liberal viewpoint, isn't it? The libertarian argument for zero government is silly
No, I know of few people who say "Let's waste money" but I do know of plenty of liberals (especially those who are disciples of the enlightened) who wish to throw money at problems that money alone won't solve. But when you question the effectiveness of treating the symptom without addressing the cause, liberals are all too quick to paint you into a corner as being against the poor or against education or ??? Perhaps this is simply the manifestation of our instant gratification culture. I don't want to diet and excersice, Doc. Isn't there some pill I could take to drop the weight? Gee, I don't really want to make any sacrafices to solve this problem. Can't we just create some sort of government agency that deals with it? I don't really feel like being bothered with running around checking up on my kids and making sure they do their homework and get good grades. Can't we just give more money to the schools and let the teachers deal with that?
And I'm not really sure where you got the libertarian thing. I don't consider myself one and very rarely vote libertarian.
I would like to know why you say that about a man you've probably never met...
Uh, when did meeting someone become requisite for having ideas about them. Has Chomsky met everyone he has expressed his negative ideas about?
As someone else mentioned, as a linguist I've seen enough of his work to tip my hat to him for his insights but beyond that I think he tends to write more to impress people with how enlightened he is rather than attempting to propose realistic, workable ideas.
posted by billman at 1:09 PM on March 15, 2002
the left I speak about is not the JFK Democrat. It's not even the reasoned socialist.
It might be easier if I abandoned the term "left" or "liberal" and use the term I actually prefer; "the enlightened." I think Thomas Sowell prefers "the annointed" but personally, I go with "the enlightened." So, who are "the enlightened" and why do I dislike them? The enlightened usually live in a fantasy world. Some in academia. Some in literature (usually novelists). The common theme though is that those who don't understand them obviously are of inferior intellect or unable to open their minds to see the light. Now, this wouldn't normally bother me if it weren't for the fact that they are typically incongruent and willingly and knowlingly use corrupt research on which to base their ideologies. Now, the reason this gets under my skin is because they are able to sell it so well and in doing so, tend to take us farther from our goals than closer to them. Research done with the conclusions already decided. Willingness to overlook common sense explinations for statistical deviations.
Now, I could go into a list of examples and beat certain points over the head but I won't because of the likelyhood of steering this thread even more off-topic than it already is. The bottom line here is that, IMHO, the enlightened are not interested in solving problems. They simply play off the emotions of people who wish to help. They are no better than some on the far right end of the spectrum who advocate racism as the solution to society's ills in that they both preach a perfect world, a nirvana, if we can just remove all of these petty little problems like . . . facts and human nature.
That's the liberal viewpoint, isn't it? The libertarian argument for zero government is silly
No, I know of few people who say "Let's waste money" but I do know of plenty of liberals (especially those who are disciples of the enlightened) who wish to throw money at problems that money alone won't solve. But when you question the effectiveness of treating the symptom without addressing the cause, liberals are all too quick to paint you into a corner as being against the poor or against education or ??? Perhaps this is simply the manifestation of our instant gratification culture. I don't want to diet and excersice, Doc. Isn't there some pill I could take to drop the weight? Gee, I don't really want to make any sacrafices to solve this problem. Can't we just create some sort of government agency that deals with it? I don't really feel like being bothered with running around checking up on my kids and making sure they do their homework and get good grades. Can't we just give more money to the schools and let the teachers deal with that?
And I'm not really sure where you got the libertarian thing. I don't consider myself one and very rarely vote libertarian.
I would like to know why you say that about a man you've probably never met...
Uh, when did meeting someone become requisite for having ideas about them. Has Chomsky met everyone he has expressed his negative ideas about?
As someone else mentioned, as a linguist I've seen enough of his work to tip my hat to him for his insights but beyond that I think he tends to write more to impress people with how enlightened he is rather than attempting to propose realistic, workable ideas.
posted by billman at 1:09 PM on March 15, 2002
You made my point right away:
It might be easier if I abandoned the term "left" or "liberal" and use the term I actually prefer; "the enlightened."
That's what I've been trying to tell you!!! So why haven't you been using that term to begin with, for christ's sake!? Of COURSE there are self-righteous people, across the political spectrum- so why the hell do you keep equating {self-righteous blowhard = liberal} when it's more proper to say that a subset of self-righteous blowhards happen to hold liberal beliefs, but that it doesn't follow that all "liberals" are self-righteous blowhards- just as various subsets of "blowhardians" hold values and beliefs of all types: political, religious, social, economic, etc, etc, etc. Doesn't it occur to you that the "enlightened" as you call them are common zealots, and that zealots come in all flavors, not just "liberals"?
"Liberal" has become the new "communist" or "fascist"; just hurl it around like a smear, morphing the definition to suit whatever purposes. Admit it- you're a liberal too. Why are you so ashamed of admitting this? It seems to avoid the "liberal" label, the term "centrist" or "moderate" came into vogue; but when you run down the laundry list of causes and beliefs of the various "we're-not-liberals!" organizations rattled off by sheauga, you might find that you and in fact most Americans hold a good deal of those values quite dearly. "The Left" and "Liberals" are not some standing Red Army of homogeneous unthinking drones, as much as the Rushes or FoxNews might want us all to think. Personally, I'd call "liberal" those people who generally root their beliefs in individual and human values such as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness but also moral values (from either Judeo-Christian or just secular humanist roots) like compassion and concern for fellow human beings and a general state of fairness and justice, where people look out for each other. Actually It's a pretty damn big group, really- the Silent Majority of liberalism in this country.
So why not call these folks for what they are: Liberals? Or at least recognize that liberal values over the past half century have become the centrist view point- from the overwhelming number of people who recognize that we have an interest in protecting the environment or providing health care for people or social security for our retired or orphaned citizens, or thinking that thousands of people having good, steady jobs to provide for their families is a more important goal than the CEO's personal finances? Isn't this liberalism? The fanatical crowd that you keep referring to are no more "liberals" that is David Horowitz- who went from radical leftie to radical rightie without much effort, because at heart he is a radical Manichean zealot.
But when you question the effectiveness of treating the symptom without addressing the cause, liberals are all too quick to paint you into a corner
Oh, because only "liberals" are guilty of this, right? Folks who for example want to post the ten commandments in schools as a way of preventing school shootings, these people are, what do you call them, liberals too? You seem to acknowledge this with your "no better than the far right" comment, then immediately follow it up with a line about how you know plenty of liberals who "want to throw money at a problem" that money alone won't solve. Once again, you've created the Straw Liberal, because despite your protestations that you aren't talking about "mainstream" liberals or Democrats, you then keep turning around and painting this picture of the kooky Liberal. Oh, and I never said you were a libertarian- only that most people instinctively reject the hardline libertarian values.
liberals are all too quick to paint you into a corner as being against the poor or against education or ???.
There you go again- "liberals" are this, "liberals" are that. Would you just cut that crap out already, you damn freakin' hippie liberal?!
Chomsky:
As for the whole Chomsky thing, my point wasn't that you have to meet him to disagree with his ideas; it's the way you quite clearly suggested his ideas- which you never quoted or dealt with directly- were nothing more than opportunistic grandstanding as opposed to his sincere beliefs- without being able to see into his heart and his mind, how can you possibly make that statement? I guess you just feel the need to cloak your cheap slander in supposedly rational garb, because you're still hurting inside from not getting the love you needed from your mother. Oh, wait, how unfair of me to engage in cheap armchair psychoanalysis of you when I've never even met you. Gosh, I'm such a stinker! See, this is the quintessence of ad hominem- rather than confront the ideas, you attack the person, accusing them of personal failings or low character, or suggesting their a hypocrite or impure in their motivations.
And I'm not sure how you think he's not proposing realistic, workable ideas: are "let's not fund or arm violent paramilitary groups in other countries; let's not have our media be freely swallowed up by monolithic organizations; let's not suppress the free exchange of information or make democracy for sale to the highest bidder" unrealistic and unworkable for you?
posted by hincandenza at 6:12 PM on March 15, 2002
It might be easier if I abandoned the term "left" or "liberal" and use the term I actually prefer; "the enlightened."
That's what I've been trying to tell you!!! So why haven't you been using that term to begin with, for christ's sake!? Of COURSE there are self-righteous people, across the political spectrum- so why the hell do you keep equating {self-righteous blowhard = liberal} when it's more proper to say that a subset of self-righteous blowhards happen to hold liberal beliefs, but that it doesn't follow that all "liberals" are self-righteous blowhards- just as various subsets of "blowhardians" hold values and beliefs of all types: political, religious, social, economic, etc, etc, etc. Doesn't it occur to you that the "enlightened" as you call them are common zealots, and that zealots come in all flavors, not just "liberals"?
"Liberal" has become the new "communist" or "fascist"; just hurl it around like a smear, morphing the definition to suit whatever purposes. Admit it- you're a liberal too. Why are you so ashamed of admitting this? It seems to avoid the "liberal" label, the term "centrist" or "moderate" came into vogue; but when you run down the laundry list of causes and beliefs of the various "we're-not-liberals!" organizations rattled off by sheauga, you might find that you and in fact most Americans hold a good deal of those values quite dearly. "The Left" and "Liberals" are not some standing Red Army of homogeneous unthinking drones, as much as the Rushes or FoxNews might want us all to think. Personally, I'd call "liberal" those people who generally root their beliefs in individual and human values such as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness but also moral values (from either Judeo-Christian or just secular humanist roots) like compassion and concern for fellow human beings and a general state of fairness and justice, where people look out for each other. Actually It's a pretty damn big group, really- the Silent Majority of liberalism in this country.
So why not call these folks for what they are: Liberals? Or at least recognize that liberal values over the past half century have become the centrist view point- from the overwhelming number of people who recognize that we have an interest in protecting the environment or providing health care for people or social security for our retired or orphaned citizens, or thinking that thousands of people having good, steady jobs to provide for their families is a more important goal than the CEO's personal finances? Isn't this liberalism? The fanatical crowd that you keep referring to are no more "liberals" that is David Horowitz- who went from radical leftie to radical rightie without much effort, because at heart he is a radical Manichean zealot.
But when you question the effectiveness of treating the symptom without addressing the cause, liberals are all too quick to paint you into a corner
Oh, because only "liberals" are guilty of this, right? Folks who for example want to post the ten commandments in schools as a way of preventing school shootings, these people are, what do you call them, liberals too? You seem to acknowledge this with your "no better than the far right" comment, then immediately follow it up with a line about how you know plenty of liberals who "want to throw money at a problem" that money alone won't solve. Once again, you've created the Straw Liberal, because despite your protestations that you aren't talking about "mainstream" liberals or Democrats, you then keep turning around and painting this picture of the kooky Liberal. Oh, and I never said you were a libertarian- only that most people instinctively reject the hardline libertarian values.
liberals are all too quick to paint you into a corner as being against the poor or against education or ???.
There you go again- "liberals" are this, "liberals" are that. Would you just cut that crap out already, you damn freakin' hippie liberal?!
Chomsky:
As for the whole Chomsky thing, my point wasn't that you have to meet him to disagree with his ideas; it's the way you quite clearly suggested his ideas- which you never quoted or dealt with directly- were nothing more than opportunistic grandstanding as opposed to his sincere beliefs- without being able to see into his heart and his mind, how can you possibly make that statement? I guess you just feel the need to cloak your cheap slander in supposedly rational garb, because you're still hurting inside from not getting the love you needed from your mother. Oh, wait, how unfair of me to engage in cheap armchair psychoanalysis of you when I've never even met you. Gosh, I'm such a stinker! See, this is the quintessence of ad hominem- rather than confront the ideas, you attack the person, accusing them of personal failings or low character, or suggesting their a hypocrite or impure in their motivations.
And I'm not sure how you think he's not proposing realistic, workable ideas: are "let's not fund or arm violent paramilitary groups in other countries; let's not have our media be freely swallowed up by monolithic organizations; let's not suppress the free exchange of information or make democracy for sale to the highest bidder" unrealistic and unworkable for you?
posted by hincandenza at 6:12 PM on March 15, 2002
The enlightened usually live in a fantasy world. Some in academia. Some in literature (usually novelists*). The common theme though is that those who don't understand them obviously are of inferior intellect or unable to open their minds to see the light. Now, this wouldn't normally bother me if it weren't for the fact that they are typically incongruent and willingly and knowlingly use corrupt research on which to base their ideologies.
Not to stir the hornets' nest, but that describes a lot of the pompous prolix liberal-hating--you, billman, excluded in my book--anonymous-user-page-blowhards around here...
*oh, like Ayn Rand, perhaps?
Which is my less heated way of agreeing with Hincadenza up there.
posted by y2karl at 10:29 PM on March 15, 2002
Not to stir the hornets' nest, but that describes a lot of the pompous prolix liberal-hating--you, billman, excluded in my book--anonymous-user-page-blowhards around here...
*oh, like Ayn Rand, perhaps?
Which is my less heated way of agreeing with Hincadenza up there.
posted by y2karl at 10:29 PM on March 15, 2002
What a disappointing thread in reply to a challenging article. Oh, well, might as well hammer in one last nail...
Talos: ... the left ... can be found alive and well in the mountains of Chiapas, the president's office in Venezuela and the streets of Genoa, among other places.
Those are some pretty cold, lonely places, Talos.
Talos: When exactly did Marxism collapse?
Oh, come on.
Then (1976): Earth's #1 and #3 largest nations, China (where Mao is still alive) and USSR, are aggressively Communist. #2 India is Socialist-to-Marxist. #4 US elects its most leftist leader in four decades. Labour owns UK. South Vietnam has just fallen, Nicaragua and Afghanistan are about to. US and other Capitalist economies are in bad shape.
Now (2002): The left has "the mountains of Chiapas, the president's office in Venezuela and the streets of Genoa."
Describe the change using any word you like, but a change occurred in the last quarter century -- a catastrophic decline in the fortunes of the hard left, and an ascent of its nemeses.
posted by Hieronymous Coward at 1:53 AM on March 16, 2002
Talos: ... the left ... can be found alive and well in the mountains of Chiapas, the president's office in Venezuela and the streets of Genoa, among other places.
Those are some pretty cold, lonely places, Talos.
Talos: When exactly did Marxism collapse?
Oh, come on.
Then (1976): Earth's #1 and #3 largest nations, China (where Mao is still alive) and USSR, are aggressively Communist. #2 India is Socialist-to-Marxist. #4 US elects its most leftist leader in four decades. Labour owns UK. South Vietnam has just fallen, Nicaragua and Afghanistan are about to. US and other Capitalist economies are in bad shape.
Now (2002): The left has "the mountains of Chiapas, the president's office in Venezuela and the streets of Genoa."
Describe the change using any word you like, but a change occurred in the last quarter century -- a catastrophic decline in the fortunes of the hard left, and an ascent of its nemeses.
posted by Hieronymous Coward at 1:53 AM on March 16, 2002
1976: Labour owns UK.
Jim Callaghan, Marxist? Denis Healey, Marxist? David Owen, Marxist? Roy Jenkins, Marxist?
Excuse me while I show this to my colleagues.
posted by riviera at 4:30 AM on March 16, 2002
Jim Callaghan, Marxist? Denis Healey, Marxist? David Owen, Marxist? Roy Jenkins, Marxist?
Excuse me while I show this to my colleagues.
posted by riviera at 4:30 AM on March 16, 2002
« Older "They were weakening our morale, it was better for... | Put on your thinking caps... literally! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by jcterminal at 4:45 AM on March 14, 2002