Obama V. Romney

[baboon2004]

the whole point of any leftist ideology is that you are a part of humankind, and not just an individual without any collective interactions; i.e. that fulfilling yourself and duties to the collective are not seen as antagonistic as such, but that part of achieving your personal goals is improving the way in which you interact with others/negotiate the difficulties that this poses. And that this makes you more content, not less so. Which in my experience is pretty true.

 

[vimothy]

Well, like I said, I think don't think that economic questions are central.

But I also think that many of the economic outcomes that people dislike are a consequence of the success of what I've been calling liberalism. This is more complicated to establish, though, whereas it's quite easy to see that liberalism is succeeding if you look at something like women's reproductive rights or the spread of democracy.

 

[luka]

what you are talking about is granting of concessions or at least thats the way i read it. the granting of concessions is not the same as relinquishing power. but again i think the water has got too muddy. i dont feel we can make progress. im going to try and start the day.

 

[vimothy]

For example, why is there this great concentration of wealth? One reason might be that there is a great drive to concentrate wealth. And why would that be? Well, there are no higher principles other than the equal satisfaction of individual impulses and desires.

Now, this might lead to conflict and violence, because you might have "Nietzschean" or "Stirnerte" types attempting to dominate their fellows. On the other hand, if we restrict the choices that people can make to a more limited domain--for example, consumption choices in the market--then we might be able to produce an aoutcome where everyone gets to make their own choices about what it is that they desire and satisfy them, without ever coming to conflict because of exclusivity or antagonism between goals.

 

[droid]

Well, like I said, I think don't think that economic questions are central.

But I also think that many of the economic outcomes that people dislike are a consequence of the success of what I've been calling liberalism. This is more complicated to establish, though, whereas it's quite easy to see that liberalism is succeeding if you look at something like women's reproductive rights or the spread of democracy.

Economic questions are utterly central, as is the concentration of power. The left advocates the concentration of political and economic power into the hands of populations or their representatives in the state. This is a fundamental tenet

'Liberalism' and social/cultural changes, by whatever definition is the outlier here. 'Liberal' is also a loaded, and almost meaningless term at this stage, is not the preserve of 'the left', and certainly not one that give us any kind of accurate indicator of ideology, despite the far-right's 'cultural marxist' sloganeering nonsense.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I think the last couple of pages illustrate very well the complete inadequacy of a one-dimensional ideological axis running from 'right' to 'left'. Also a bit surprised to see vimothy talking about "liberalism or leftism" as if the terms are all but interchangeable. Surely it's unarguable that in many (most? all?) developed countries there has been a definite shift (more than a 'patina' as droid put it, I think) towards social liberalism/libertarianism/leftism - I think these ideologies can be grouped more or less reasonably in social terms - but in economic terms there has been a very marked movement to the right.

Or how about: 'liberalism', in the most general sense of the word, is associated with the social left but the economic right?

 

[luka]

one thing that has been remarked upon a great deal is the liberalism of the edl.

 

[vimothy]

My perspective is historical. It's obvious that liberalism is on the left-hand side of the floor. Today, of course, even conservatives are liberal. So what? I'm not a nominalist. I believe that words have meanings, that we can talk about the essence of things. It's hard to see how conversation could proceed otherwise.

A fundamental question of political philosophy is: How should society be governed?

Historically, the dominant set up is basically monarchy. Why should society be governed by a King (or even by the alliance of "Throne and Altar")? That doesn't seem to make rational sense. It would be much better if we applied science (in the broadest sense, i.e., scientia) to the problem and came up with something better.

Well, that is the story of the post-Enlightenment world. Or, if you prefer, the story of leftism or liberalism.

 

[luka]

dead end then it seems to me. what is the question anyway? what are we talking about?
ive lost the thread.

 

[Mr. Tea]

one thing that has been remarked upon a great deal is the liberalism of the edl.

Well they're bravely protecting the fair white womenfolk of Walthamstow from those marauding Muslamic rape gangs, which is pretty liberal if you ask me.

 

[vimothy]

one thing that has been remarked upon a great deal is the liberalism of the edl.

A neat way to see what I'm talking about is to ask yourself: In what kind of world are conservatives revolutionary democrats who go around the world overthrowing existing authorities and trying to establish liberal democracies in their place?

People often make this connection when they express scepticism over the putative aims of conservative western factions in Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever. When did conservatives get so keen on women's rights--weren't these the guys who were trying to prevent women from achieving them in our own societies, not so long ago?

 

[droid]

I think the last couple of pages illustrate very well the complete inadequacy of a one-dimensional ideological axis running from 'right' to 'left'. Also a bit surprised to see vimothy talking about "liberalism or leftism" as if the terms are all but interchangeable. Surely it's unarguable that in many (most? all?) developed countries there has been a definite shift (more than a 'patina' as droid put it, I think) towards social liberalism/libertarianism/leftism - I think these ideologies can be grouped more or less reasonably in social terms - but in economic terms there has been a very marked movement to the right.

Or how about: 'liberalism', in the most general sense of the word, is associated with the social left but the economic right?

Patina might be over egging it a bit, but gay and minority rights? equal pay for women? Political Correctness?

Though all very laudable and worthy of praise, it doesn't really mean shit in the big picture unless it's manifested as genuine political change. Just some new games for the children to play while the adults get on with things.

The real power lies with capital.

 

[droid]

A neat way to see what I'm talking about is to ask yourself: In what kind of world are conservatives revolutionary democrats who go around the world overthrowing existing authorities and trying to establish liberal democracies in their place?

In a fantasy world youve invented, as it's never happened here.

People often make this connection when they express scepticism over the putative aims of conservative western factions in Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever. When did conservatives get so keen on women's rights--weren't these the guys who were trying to prevent women from achieving them in our own societies, not so long ago?

They never did. Its PR.

 

[vimothy]

Droid, if we lived in the Ancien Regime, you'd know about it.

 

[luka]

i understand what you are saying vimothy. i am not quite as slow as i seem to be. youve been making the same point for the last 2 years. i dont understand what the conversation is about/ i can understand individual comments.

tea, do you really not know what i am talking about?

 

[droid]

Vim, you seem blinded by this obsession with 'liberalism'.

Also, your persistent naivety wrt to recent mid eastern adventures is almost endearing.

 

[vimothy]

In a fantasy world youve invented, as it's never happened here.

I happens all the time. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are only the three most recent examples. Syria, of course, is up next. We could go further back into history. It turns out to be a pretty big list. That's how we ended up with all these democratic governments.

They never did. Its PR.

Well, I mean, exactly.

But if today's democratic rulers believe in the traditional approach of "the government de facto is the government for us", then they're doing a pretty good job of disguising it.

 

[vimothy]

i understand what you are saying vimothy. i am not quite as slow as i seem to be. youve been making the same point for the last 2 years.

I believe you! It's quite heartening, actually.

 

[luka]

lool

 

[vimothy]

Vim, you seem blinded by this obsession with 'liberalism'.

Perhaps I am, I dunno. I find post Enlightenment history and the trajectory of society interesting. Your mileage may vary, as in all things.

There was a strucural break in the Enlightenment, when people began to apply rationalism to both to man and to society itself. This gave rise to the "politics of reason".

If you don't give a name to the new politics, then it's not easy to talk about it. If you don't want to talk about, then this is no big deal. But if you do, then you need to find wrods for it.

Democracy is a central idea to the new approach, not simply in the sense of a mechanism for selecting leaders, but as a philosophy of government. Society is ordered for the benefit of The People, and not according to a transcendent or natural law.

From there you could go in different directions. One direction is nationalism, and later, fascism. Another direction is universalism, and communism. Another direction still is liberalism. If you'd rather call it something else, that's fine, but liberalism is the most appropriate term, it seems to me. (From Wikipedia: "Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is a political philosophy or worldview founded on the ideas of liberty and equality.")

One way to think about it is as "modernity". But modernity is bigger than liberalism--modernity contains a politics, but it contains other things as well. Mark Anderson's definition of modernity is,

Modernity: reductivist methodology; empiricist epistemology; materialist ontology; mechanistic physics; hedonistic ethics; radical politics.​

But that's very broad. It seems like it would be better to be more specific, since it's politics that's the focus here.

Also, your persistent naivety wrt to recent mid eastern adventures is almost endearing.

I think you are rather missing the point here...