----- Original Message -----
From: "david buchanan" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Babylonian intellectuals
DT said:
... Where they [Pirsig and Goldberg] diverge radically is on the
consequences of this "shift from social domination of intellect to
intellectual domination of society" under Wilson, Hitler, Stalin, and
Mussolini. Because believe it or not they were all trying to do very
similar things.
dmb says:
It would be more appropriate to compare FDR to Hitler, Stalin and
Mussolini. Wilson was President a generation earlier than all these other
leaders, during WWI. As Pirsig's analysis goes, he is contrasting FDR's
socialism with Hitler's fascism. Within American politics, the people who
hated FDR's New Deal policies called his a "Commie" and traitor to his
class, the Aristocracy. This is what Pirsig means when he's talking about
socialism. That's the historical example of what an intellectually guided
society would actually look like in our political culture, which is less
intense and dramatic than in Europe. And this is not just some theoretical
political spectrum. I mean, the Americans who hated and condemned FDR were
also very likely to be sympathetic toward European fascism. You'd find
portraits of Mussolini in people's homes and there was a very popular
radio preacher who told millions every week what great guy Hitler is and
how that radical lefty FDR had to be stopped. Th
is stuff has been swept under the rug to some extent - not the sort of
thing you learn about in high school history texts but the historical
record is there if you care to look. And if you do look, it's pretty easy
to see a continuity from then until now, with the same very same arguments
and attitudes. You'd be amazed at how a Klansman from the 1920's sounds
just like a Militia member or a neo-Nazi of today. What George Wallace was
saying to frighten white voters in the 1960s is very much what FOX is
saying to frighten while voters right now. Things have hardly changed at
all. In fact, just think about what kind of answers you'd get if you asked
a large sample of ditto-heads and Fox fan how they feel about FDR. I don't
even have to tell you what kind of answers you'd get, right? If we're
living in the same reality, you're thinking very few would have nice
things to say and most would express themselves using words like
"socialism" and "communism" in a very unflattering way.
[Platt]
Ah yes, the radical left's mantra -- conservatives are racists.
DT said:
His first problem is equating capitalism, an economic theory and practice,
with socialism which is an all encompassing political theory, a part of
which is its economic theory.
dmb says:
I think I know what you mean but it's important to understand that
socialism comes in many shapes and forms but there is one thing they all
have in common; an opposition to unfettered capitalism. Socialism is, in
essence, a critical stance toward pure free markets. Within the context of
U.S. politics, that opposition is predicated on the belief that
unregulated capitalism produces misery and injustice, that it is not
consistent with democratic rights and principles. This is democratic
socialism and this is what socialism means in Western World. I think it's
pretty clear that the MOQ wants to endorse intellectually guided societies
along this lines. I mean, it would be unfair and unreasonable to suggest
that Pirsig's intellectually guided society would be the nightmare version
imagined by right-wingers, who equate it with a Communist Dictatorship
like Stalin's or something like that, as if taxation led directly to the
Gulag.
[Platt]
For someone who claims to know history, you don't know much. The danger is
not unfettered capitalism but unfettered government. Hitler's party, the
National Socialist German Worker's Party, was elected democratically.
DT said:
The pragmatic PROOF that this is true, is that capitalism has, does, and
continues to work with varying degrees of success under all types of
political systems from dictatorships to democracies.
dmb says:
That just goes to show that capitalism and democracy are not the same
thing. Most South American dictatorships since WWII, for example, have
been very friendly to capitalism.
DT said:
But while it is true that centrally planned socialist or fascist economics
kill dynamic potential; much more importantly RMP's evaluation completely
glosses over the fact that they both include political theories that
justify the extremely dynamic practice of intimidating, imprisoning, or
killing anyone who does or might disagree with any of those theories or
practices. Or who are deemed to have little value to society. All this
based on the best possible "science" of course.
dmb says:
You've lumped socialism and fascism together to criticize Pirsig's
analysis but in that analysis socialism and fascism are opposed terms.
According to the meaning of the term as Pirsig describes it and uses it,
"socialism" would definitely be opposed to killing anyone who disagrees.
According to the meaning of the phrase as Pirsig uses it, an
"intellectually guided society" doesn't not imprison or intimidate anyone
for dissenting. In fact, the main idea of an intellectually guided society
is to protect freedom of speech, freedom of expression, religion,
association and the like. I mean, you are equating socialism with the very
worst things, things that it opposes.
[Platt] Pirsig "lumped" socialism and communism together as intellectually
guided. Does intellectually-guided communism protect free speech, freedom of
association and the like? Yeah, right.
DT said:
Both fascism and socialism are based on the crudest form of pragmatism.
The ends justify the means. When I get in power I will define the ends and
use any means available to me to get to them. Even if along the way they
turn out not to be so good. If you don't like that I will get one of my
boys to show you the light. Often by piercing a 9mm hole through your head
and your wife's head, and your kids head, though not necessarily in that
order.
dmb says:
Right. Socialism is where they shoot your whole family in the head. That's
what Pirsig means by intellectual guidance. Yea, Gulags and genocide and
eugenics. That's what the MOQ is all about. Gee, that's such an insightful
and informative conclusion. It really must be taken with the utmost
seriousness. You're obviously quite sincere in trying to unlock Pirsig
"real" intentions. Unfortunately for you, however, the record shows a lack
of ideological compliance so I'm afraid you and your family will have to
go.
We'll send you a bill for the bullets, by the way.
[Platt]
DMB knows the drill well.
> DT said:
I believe that one of the attractions to you [DMB] in Pirsig's work is
that his liberal biases syncs with yours.
dmb says:
Well, I agree with his analysis and "liberal" does more or less describe
my view but to say we're both biased in the same direction is to say we're
both prejudiced and unfair. How so? As a matter of fact, I learned about
conservatism from conservatives at a conservative college, where I studied
intellectual history. I worked in talk radio, as the producer of a
conservative talk show. I grew up in the church. It's not like I learned
about conservatism from its enemies, which is where you seem to have
learned about liberalism. As with your equation of socialism and bullets
through the head, it seems to me that you are being wildly unfair and
hyperbolic and generally distorting Pirsig analysis beyond all
recognition.
If you want to know why there's been so much diversity and disagreement
over the social/intellectual levels and their relationship, just think
about the simple fact that you have equated the very two camps that Pirsig
uses as oppositional points in his analysis; socialism and fascism. If
we're going to have a reasonable discussion about politics, the meaning of
these central terms has to be consistent. If you use the terms to mean the
opposite of what it means in the quotes in question, then there's no way
the conversation is ever going to go anywhere because it'll always be
confused and confounded by contradictory meanings and concepts. It is
almost literally a case where the support for human rights is taken as a
road to genocide. Nobody's talking about central planning of the economy
or bullets in the heads of those who are against it. That's a ridiculous
paranoid fantasy and it's outrageously insulting to pretend any version of
the MOQ is in favor of such a thing.
C'mon, Dave. Be serious. That's bullshit and you know it.
[Platt]
Socialism, communism, fascism all feature central economic planning and
control, redistribution of wealth, and shared sacrifice for a larger.public
good.. Their modus operandi is compliance by intimidation and physical force
with little regard for private property or individual rights. You don't get
much lower quality than that. But to DMB, that's Utopia.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
