The Ethical Foundations of Marxism (1)
Ron Allen
Marxism
Author: Eugene Kamenka
Frederick A. Praeger, 1962
Contents
PREFACE
CITATIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
PRELIMINARIES: Marx, Marxism and Ethics
Part I: The Primitive Ethic of Karl Marx
1 THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE CONCEPT
2 THE FREE INDIVIDUAL
3 THE NATURAL LAW OF FREEDOM
4 THE 'TRULY HUMAN' SOCIETY
Part II: Karl Marx's Road to Communism
5 THE NEW SOCIAL DIALECTIC
6 THE CRITIQUE OF POLITICS
7 THE CRITIQUE OF ECONOMICS
8 COMMUNISM AND THE COMPLETE, UNALIENATED
MAN
Part III: Critical Résumé: Ethics and the Young
Marx
9 ETHICS-POSITIVE OR NORMATIVE?
10 THE REJECTION OF MORALISM, OF 'RIGHTS' AND
OF NORMATIVE LAW
11 ETHICS AND THE 'TRULY HUMAN' SOCIETY
Part IV: Ethics and the Mature Marx
12 THE NEW EDIFICE: HISTORICAL MATERIALISM AND
THE REJECTION OF 'PHILOSOPHY'
13 THE MATERIALIST INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY
AND MARX'S CRITIQUE OF MORALITIES
14 HISTORICAL MATERIALISM AND THE OVERCOMING
OF ALIENATION
Part V: Communism and Ethics
15 ETHICS AND THE COMMUNIST PARTY
16 LAW AND MORALITY IN SOVIET SOCIETY
Conclusions
ETHICS AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF MARXISM
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CITED
jmh
posts are adding NOTHING to any discussion or are the
particularly related to any specific points of discussion.
Please be a good netizen and cease this spamming/advertising
kick you seem to be on.
jmh
Ron Allen
> Ron, this list is not a forum for advertising
> books. These posts are adding NOTHING to any
> discussion or are the particularly related to
> any specific points of discussion.
> Please be a good netizen and cease this
> spamming/advertising kick you seem to be on.
Ron Allen answers:
It is not my intention to spam or to advertise.
It is my intention to introduce topics for
discussion.
Woodard R. Springstube
$lh3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
Ron,
Why? Nobody can have a discussion with you. You refuse to
accept any standard definition used in either Economics or
even in the dictionary. You constantly redefine words in
strange ways to bolster your position, without reference to
either common usage or the standard vocabulary of economics.
You claim that the science of Economics is just an invention
of the evil capitalists that is used to keep workers down.
You ignore 90-95% of economics since Karl Marx. You push a
failed system and philosophy that has killed millions in the
name of the people and then claim that, "It wasn't real
Marxism; the real thing will be different." You dodge
questions constantly if the answers are uncomfortable to your
ideology. In short, it is impossible to have a discussion
with you, since it always ends up with you, and the other
person, talking past each other.
In short, your "discussions" are nothing more than vehicles to
propagandize for your fantasy world where Marxism would
actually work because people were totally unselfish and
willing to see themselves and their children do without things
for the benefit of persons that they have never seen, much
less met. Discussions with you are totally non-productive of
anything except misunderstanding and frustration.
John VanSickle
Gwar
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> In short, your "discussions" are nothing more than vehicles to
> propagandize for your fantasy world where Marxism would actually work
> because people were totally unselfish and willing to see themselves and
> their children do without things for the benefit of persons that they
> have never seen, much less met.
Be that as it may be, there are a lot of "isms" out there that make that
demand. What do you call the "ism" that requires people to go to Iraq &
allegedly liberate the people there for an alleged democracy, (among other
reasons)? Killing & getting killed for that cause is certainly akin to
doing something for the "benefit of persons that they have never seen,
much less met".
Gwar
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, John VanSickle wrote:
> "We've got the guns. Do as we say."
There's a lot of that going around. It's the shadow motto of virtually
every police department.
Woodard R. Springstube
news:Pine.LNX.4.58.04...@natasha.toon.net:
Great job with the Red Herring. Actually not. It is one of
the most obvious that I have seen recently.
As for Iraq, I wish that we had stayed out, but I believe
that, even if Saddam didn't have WMD recently, he still
deserves to hang. There is no doubt that he has used WMD in
the past, both against Iran and the Kurds. There also seems
to be ample evidence that Saddam was one of the more egregious
butchers of the last 20 years. Of course, the whole mess in
the Middle East, and much of the problems in Africa can easily
be traced to the British and French colonialism of the past.
When they finally gave up their empires, they set up nations
that combined mutually hostile groups like the Shiites and
Sunnis. I expect that many of these nations will degenerate
into violent internal conflict over the next several years
just as several African nations have since their independence.
The whole mess is a last poisonous fruit of European
colonialism. However, the Europeans have made the same sorts
of errors in Europe. Consider Yugoslavia, formed after World
War I from pieces of the Hapsburg Empire, it contained ethnic
groups that have fought and hated each other for hundreds of
years. Once Tito died, there was nobody to keep the lid on
ethnic violence and the whole thing blew up with tragic
consequences for many helpless people. That is why I wish
that we would behave better in the Middle East. If we didn't
give them a common enemy, then the whole thing would go into
internicine squabbles, since they would no longer have a
common enemy.
Gwar
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
>>> In short, your "discussions" are nothing more than
>>> vehicles to propagandize for your fantasy world where
>>> Marxism would actually work because people were totally
>>> unselfish and willing to see themselves and their children
>>> do without things for the benefit of persons that they
>>> have never seen, much less met.
>> Be that as it may be, there are a lot of "isms" out there
>> that make that demand. What do you call the "ism" that
>> requires people to go to Iraq & allegedly liberate the
>> people there for an alleged democracy, (among other
>> reasons)? Killing & getting killed for that cause is
>> certainly akin to doing something for the "benefit of
>> persons that they have never seen, much less met".
> Great job with the Red Herring. Actually not. It is one of the most
> obvious that I have seen recently.
The point is, "people are willing to do things for the benefits of
persons they have never seen, much less met", given sufficient motivation,
and/or conditioning.
> As for Iraq, I wish that we had stayed out, but I believe that, even if
> Saddam didn't have WMD recently, he still deserves to hang.
Not at the expense of waging an unjust war unless you have no problem with
hypocrisy.
> There is no doubt that he has used WMD in the past, both against Iran
> and the Kurds.
& there's no doubt that he got weapons & support from the US, who had no
problem with whatever he did until it became expedient to do otherwise.
So, if you want to be a hanging judge, you can't just stop at Saddam.
Ron Allen
> Ron, this list is not a forum for advertising
> books. These posts are adding NOTHING to any
> discussion or are the particularly related to
> any specific points of discussion.
> Please be a good netizen and cease this
> spamming/advertising kick you seem to be on.
Ron Allen wrote:
> It is not my intention to spam or to advertise.
> It is my intention to introduce topics for
> discussion.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> Ron,
> Why?
Ron Allen answers:
Why what? Why am I determined to present and
propose topics for newsgroup debate?
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> Nobody can have a discussion with you.
Ron Allen answers:
Which is all the more reason to let others do the
writing, to let better qualified and recognized
authors, with credentials, do some of the
debating. If you cannot debate with me, then I
will give you an opportunity to debate with other
people, whose writings have been subjected to peer
review and to educated critique.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> You refuse to accept any standard definition
> used in either Economics or even in the
> dictionary. You constantly redefine words in
> strange ways to bolster your position, without
> reference to either common usage or the standard
> vocabulary of economics. You claim that the
> science of Economics is just an invention of the
> evil capitalists that is used to keep workers
> down.
Ron Allen answers:
I have never said bourgeois economics is merely
the creation of evil capitalists. I believe the
word "evil" is just too severe, too intense a
word to use. I have been very clear that early
capitalism was revolutionary, and was progressive.
I have also been very clear that early, classical
bourgeois economics was an honest and honorable
scientific enterprise. I have often said that
capitalists are no more evil than other people;
and that it is the capitalist system that needs
to be scrapped. I am so tired of always being
misrepresented and misinterpreted by those who,
like you, will not engage in honest and sensible
debate. I will, therefore, let some credentialed
authors do some of the reasonings, some of the
arguments, some of the polemics, and we'll see if
this helps to elevate the discussion. You, and
some of the others, detest me too much, and so
your hostility gets in the way of what ought to be
friendly and beneficial debate. I cannot move the
discussion forward, because we're entangled in the
most elementary stages of debate, we're still
enmeshed in the most primary, most basic level of
discussion.
I will say that I have plans to introduce some of
the best conservative and pro-capitalist authors
as well. I have every intention of debating these
recognized champions of capitalism. It will be a
far more interesting dialogue than I have been
able to have with you and some of the others who
have been participating on this newsgroup. I wish
to debate with the best of arguments, and not with
the weakest pretense at an argument.
When it comes to the "evil capitalists", I find
much truth in the words of the Talmud, which says
that "We presume none sins unless he stands to
profit by it." There is a lot of reality in these
few simple words.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> You ignore 90-95% of economics since Karl Marx.
Ron Allen answers:
I have read lots of economics. I am engaged in a
philosophical and political debate, which does not
require that I repeat, recite, recount, or relate
most of the content and substance of contemporary
economics. There is more to my education and
knowledge than I need to exhibit for the purpose
of discussing what I am interested in debating.
I am not a know-it-all; but I am schooled in much
of what makes for a culturally literate person.
People who know me respect me for my intellect and
for my genteel nature. They know me for more than
a newsgroup writer. I am an atheist that even
good Christians can like; and, I am a social
democrat that even a serious and libertarian
capitalist can have a friendly feeling for.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> You push a failed system and philosophy that has
> killed millions in the name of the people and
> then claim that, "It wasn't real Marxism; the
> real thing will be different."
Ron Allen answers:
And, when I say that bolshevik statism was not
democratic socialism, I am saying what I believe
to be true. I do not believe philosophical and
libertarian communism is a failed belief-system.
I also do not believe that marxism contributes
much to the positive elucidation of philosophical
socialism. Marxism is more a negative criticism
of capitalism. Marxists do not tell us much as
to what an anarchist communism will be or could
be. There is every good reason for this silence.
In my opinion, a consistent libertarian, and a
principled social democrat cannot presume to give
a blueprint for a possible future. Let the people
of the future decide the future. Let the next
generations determine the content of their life
and work together as political communities.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> You dodge questions constantly if the answers
> are uncomfortable to your ideology.
Ron Allen answers:
There are questions which are framed with a
certain answer in mind. Such questions cannot
be answered if I do not propose or prescribe the
answer the question presumes. If a question
presupposes an answer I do not admit or own,
then I cannot answer the question directly.
I can only redirect the discussion in such cases.
I'm not being dishonest or evasive when I do this.
I'm not getting answers to questions I ask, and I
suppose that is because you do not have an answer.
I can see no reason to believe that because I do
not answer your questions, then that means I am
not doing my part in the conversation. There are
answers that are uncertain, undetermined, or
unsettled, but not really uncomfortable. I am,
after all, uncomfortable with answering undecided
questions, or unpredictable questions. Questions
about a democratic society must be decided by a
democratic society. Questions about socialism
cannot assume that today's socialists can predict
what tomorrow's society will elect for itself. In
advocating socialism, I am advocating the kind of
society which an entire community collectively
creates and constitutes.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> In short, it is impossible to have a discussion
> with you, since it always ends up with you, and
> the other person, talking past each other.
Ron Allen answers:
Yes; this is true. Even you have participated in
just such a difficulty. However, it takes two to
tango. It is not all my fault. You are also at
fault, just as I am. I have noticed that this
impasse happens all too often in debates between
other people as well. People with different ideas
and with opposed opinions all too often come to
such stand-offs, and stand-stills. My debate with
you, and with others, has certainly come to a
prolonged stand-still. However, I have not given
up. I suppose that if I introduce some other
voices into the fray, maybe some new and fresh
thoughts will sharpen and prompt some further and
better discussion. I don't know. I can only try.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> In short, your "discussions" are nothing more
> than vehicles to propagandize for your fantasy
> world where Marxism would actually work because
> people were totally unselfish and willing to see
> themselves and their children do without things
> for the benefit of persons that they have never
> seen, much less met.
Ron Allen answers:
I suppose that I do propagandize for what I
believe and desire. I suppose you do that also.
People do not need to be "totally unselfish" for
a libertarian and democratic society to succeed,
to prosper, and to flourish. What is needed is a
prudent middle-ground between selfishness and
selflessness, a balance of greed and generosity,
a harmony of egoism with altruism. What is needed
are the republican civic virtues, which the more
revolutionary capitalists advocated, and which the
more revolutionary socialists advocate.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> Discussions with you are totally non-productive
> of anything except misunderstanding and
> frustration.
Ron Allen answers:
Perhaps this is true; but, I am not convinced that
this breakdown is all my fault, or only my fault.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"There is no sin but ignorance."
-- Christopher Marlowe
Ron Allen
> "We've got the guns. Do as we say."
Ron Allen answers:
There have been communist party tyrants. I do not
deny this fact, this reality. There have also
been christian tyrants. But, just as the ethical
foundations of christian faith oppose and condemn
the actions and effects of unethical christians,
so also do the ethical foundations of communist
belief oppose and condemn the actions and effects
of unethical communists. Human beings do not
always live up to their best ideals, do not always
trust and obey their better natures.
Gwar wrote:
> There's a lot of that going around. It's the
> shadow motto of virtually every police
> department.
Ron Allen answers:
It's the conspicuous truism of every police state,
whether it be capitalist or communist. There are
socialists who believe that the dictatorship of
the proletariat is a necessary evil if we are ever
to overthrow the harsh dictatorship of capital
over labor. This is really not all that different
from the opinion of those who believe the state is
a necessary and indispensable evil, a timeless and
ceaseless evil.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"'Tis not every question that deserves an answer."
-- Thomas Fuller
jmh
Gwar wrote:
>
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
>
>
>>>>In short, your "discussions" are nothing more than
>>>>vehicles to propagandize for your fantasy world where
>>>>Marxism would actually work because people were totally
>>>>unselfish and willing to see themselves and their children
>>>>do without things for the benefit of persons that they
>>>>have never seen, much less met.
>
>
>>>Be that as it may be, there are a lot of "isms" out there
>>>that make that demand. What do you call the "ism" that
>>>requires people to go to Iraq & allegedly liberate the
>>>people there for an alleged democracy, (among other
>>>reasons)? Killing & getting killed for that cause is
>>>certainly akin to doing something for the "benefit of
>>>persons that they have never seen, much less met".
>
>
>>Great job with the Red Herring. Actually not. It is one of the most
>>obvious that I have seen recently.
>
>
> The point is, "people are willing to do things for the benefits of
> persons they have never seen, much less met", given sufficient motivation,
> and/or conditioning.
Yes and a very simple, are generally peaceful one,
is gains from trade, including indirect trades that
are ubiquitous in a market economy, one migh argue
that such transactions are the predomenant ones.
No isms are even required for this "doing things for
the benefits of persons they have never seen...."
jmh
Ron Allen
> In short, your "discussions" are nothing more
> than vehicles to propagandize for your fantasy
> world where Marxism would actually work because
> people were totally unselfish and willing to see
> themselves and their children do without things
> for the benefit of persons that they have never
> seen, much less met.
Gwar wrote:
> Be that as it may be, there are a lot of "isms"
> out there that make that demand. What do you
> call the "ism" that requires people to go to
> Iraq & allegedly liberate the people there for
> an alleged democracy, (among other reasons)?
> Killing & getting killed for that cause is
> certainly akin to doing something for the
> "benefit of persons that they have never seen,
> much less met".
Ron Allen answers:
How many others must I meet before I can begin to
care about other people? Do I need to see and
meet every other human being before I can begin
to desire the best for every person, and to mind
about the good of every individual? I don't have
to see and to know every person in order just to
respect and regard every person as being a fellow
human being, as being an equal citizen. I want
the welfare and the success of every person, even
though I have never met every person. I've never
met or seen you, Woodard; but, I've met enough
people, and I've known enough people, that I can
conjecture you have some praiseworthy virtues and
some admirable qualities, even though you do not
display your best temperament when it comes to
doing newsgroup dialogue with a professed social-
democrat such as I am.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> Great job with the Red Herring. Actually not.
> It is one of the most obvious that I have seen
> recently.
Ron Allen answers:
"Red Herring" is one of those many over-used
expressions.
Gwar wrote:
> The point is, "people are willing to do things
> for the benefits of persons they have never
> seen, much less met", given sufficient
> motivation, and/or conditioning.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> As for Iraq, I wish that we had stayed out, but
> I believe that, even if Saddam didn't have WMD
> recently, he still deserves to hang.
Ron Allen answers:
It would have been better if the people of Iraq
did their own revolution; and if the United
Nations and the United States simply assisted the
people of Iraq in their revolution. It is because
the United States does not believe in democracy,
and because the United States is corrupted by too
much power that we have tolerated the President's
arrogance, and his clear contempt for the rule of
international law. I fear the future implications
of Bush's doctrine of preemptive warfare. And,
now, after we went to Iraq to establish democracy,
we have some reluctance to let Iraq's democracy
be. If the people of Iraq were not ready for
democracy, then why did we go to war to give them
democracy? Why did those in power believe that we
can fight in other lands in order to establish a
viable democracy in other nations? Only free
people can build a democracy for themselves. And,
only free people can risk life and property for
the cause of democracy. The United States cannot
take up arms against other nation-states in order
to take democracy to the peoples of other nations.
We can help people of other countries in their own
struggle for democracy, but we cannot impose our
vision of the world on other peoples. If power
corrupts, then we had better be careful about our
own use and abuse of power. We had better learn
to concede and to defer in the face of opposition
from other nations. We cannot start wars in order
to stop wars. That is simply preposterous, and
utterly irresponsible, and dangerous. We just may
become like the terrorists we are so afraid of.
We may end up becoming the very enemies of genuine
democracy.
Gwar wrote:
> Not at the expense of waging an unjust war
> unless you have no problem with hypocrisy.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> There is no doubt that he has used WMD in the
> past, both against Iran and the Kurds.
Ron Allen answers:
Those who oppose the United States in its
preemptive war against Iraq do not deny the fact
that Saddam Hussein used WMDs against Kurdish
separatists and Iraqi Shi'ites, as well as against
the Iranians. The preemptive war will not reverse
these brutal facts, or erase the bitterness of war
and of hate. Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator
and George Bush is a kind and gentle president,
but even the best of us can be corrupted by the
arrogance of power. The legislative branch is
there to check and balance the executive branch,
and it's just not doing what it's supposed to be
doing. There's that convention of not condemning
the president during wartime. There's the fear
that to criticize a wartime president is itself
tantamount to disrespecting the active soldiers
and the veterans of past service who have risked
and are risking their lives in doing their duty.
However, I believe that we insult the sacrifices
of every soldier -- especially those who have
been killed or taken prisoner in action -- when we
forget what their service and sacrifice was for,
when we act as if the freedom and dignity they
fought and died for are nothing more than a lot
of beautiful words written on old parchments and
in academic publications. If we live in an
alleged democracy, then criticizing a president is
not disparaging the courage and the efforts of
those who must obey their commander-in-chief, no
matter what their personal opinions may be. There
is a time to obey, and there is a time to oppose.
There are those who can and should dissent and
resist. The legislative branch has a duty to
rebel against the president when the executive
branch overrates its own power and overvalues its
own authority. And, citizens have a right and a
duty to revolt against executive tyranny, and
against legislative or judicial despotism. A
citizen does not have a duty to obey the way a
soldier has a duty to follow orders. Legislators
and citizens can do what soldiers are not free to
do - i.e., they can question the president, and
they can challenge a president's decisions. If a
soldier knows this, then they can obey orders even
while they observe legislative opposition and the
protests of citizens. We can openly dispute and
doubt a president's decisions, without this being
interpreted as openly calling into question a
soldier's duty of obey the decisions and commands
of their commander-in-chief.
The French and the Germans are not our enemies
because they expressed disagreement with the
"elected" president of these United States. The
French and the Germans are our friends; and we can
respect their right to disagree with us, and we
can acknowledge their goodwill all the same.
Gwar wrote:
> & there's no doubt that he got weapons & support
> from the US, who had no problem with whatever he
> did until it became expedient to do otherwise.
> So, if you want to be a hanging judge, you can't
> just stop at Saddam.
Ron Allen answers:
Well said! Bravo!
<><><><><><><><><>
"War is not an adventure, it's a disease. Like
typhus."
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Woodard R. Springstube
news:Pine.LNX.4.58.04...@natasha.toon.net:
>
>
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
>
>>>> In short, your "discussions" are nothing more than
>>>> vehicles to propagandize for your fantasy world where
>>>> Marxism would actually work because people were totally
>>>> unselfish and willing to see themselves and their
>>>> children do without things for the benefit of persons
>>>> that they have never seen, much less met.
>
>>> Be that as it may be, there are a lot of "isms" out there
>>> that make that demand. What do you call the "ism" that
>>> requires people to go to Iraq & allegedly liberate the
>>> people there for an alleged democracy, (among other
>>> reasons)? Killing & getting killed for that cause is
>>> certainly akin to doing something for the "benefit of
>>> persons that they have never seen, much less met".
>
>> Great job with the Red Herring. Actually not. It is one
>> of the most obvious that I have seen recently.
>
> The point is, "people are willing to do things for the
> benefits of persons they have never seen, much less met",
> given sufficient motivation, and/or conditioning.
Usually, a bayonet to the back. At least that has been the
standard Marxist method of motivation. No ideology has resulted
in more mass murder than the various forms of Marxism and other
types of totalitarian socialism.
Ron Allen
> Usually, a bayonet to the back. At least that
> has been the standard Marxist method of
> motivation.
Ron Allen answers:
What does "standard" mean in this context? Not
every marxist would use the method of motivation
you describe -- i.e., a bayonet to the back. It
is a fact of history that socialists, anarchists,
libertarians, communists, marxists, etc. have also
taken bayonets in their back, and in other areas
of their body. Just as the authoritarian
christian church massacred and butchered many good
people, some of them confessed christians, so also
has the authoritarian communist state slaughtered
and executed many good people, some of them avowed
communists.
Woodard R. Springstube wrote:
> No ideology has resulted in more mass murder
> than the various forms of Marxism and other
> types of totalitarian socialism.
Ron Allen answers:
It is very true that there have been marxists
who have advocated and carried out crimes of
murder and violence. But, not every marxist
has advocated or carried out such criminal acts.
Also, not every socialist advocates totalitarian
socialism. Democratic socialists advocate a
libertarian socialism. It is important to keep
such differences always in mind.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"Patience is the virtue of asses."
-- French proverb
John VanSickle
>
> John VanSickle wrote:
> > "We've got the guns. Do as we say."
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> There have been communist party tyrants. I do not
> deny this fact, this reality. There have also
> been christian tyrants. But, just as the ethical
> foundations of christian faith oppose and condemn
> the actions and effects of unethical christians,
> so also do the ethical foundations of communist
> belief oppose and condemn the actions and effects
> of unethical communists.
"It'll be different this time! I swear!"
I'm not convinced.
Regards,
John
Ron Allen
> "We've got the guns. Do as we say."
Ron Allen wrote:
> There have been communist party tyrants. I do
> not deny this fact, this reality. There have
> also been christian tyrants. But, just as the
> ethical foundations of christian faith oppose
> and condemn the actions and effects of unethical
> christians, so also do the ethical foundations
> of communist belief oppose and condemn the
> actions and effects of unethical communists.
John VanSickle wrote:
> "It'll be different this time! I swear!"
> I'm not convinced.
Ron Allen answers:
You believe that a democratic path to socialist
construction can make no difference relative to a
tyrannical path to socialism? You believe that
every possible path to socialism will fail?
What path did capitalism take that made it so
successful, and so innocent, so blameless?
<><><><><><><><><><>
"I am the fellow citizen of every being that
thinks; my country is Truth."
-- Alphonse Marie Louis de Prat de Lamartine
Ron Allen
> I don't know who "Ron Allen" is, but I agree
> with "jmh." It's pretty wierd to just list the
> TOC of several books...in what way could that
> possibly be conducive to conversation?
Ron Allen answers:
Hello Luke,
I am posting the TOC of these books in preparation
for posting the substantive content of these very
same books.
Be patient. This will take some time to do.
michael price
> John VanSickle wrote:
> > "We've got the guns. Do as we say."
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> There have been communist party tyrants. I do not
> deny this fact, this reality. There have also
> been christian tyrants. But, just as the ethical
> foundations of christian faith oppose and condemn
> the actions and effects of unethical christians,
> so also do the ethical foundations of communist
> belief oppose and condemn the actions and effects
> of unethical communists.
But communism is based on the ethic of "We have the
guns do as we say.". Making people do what you say
by force is not unethical by communist standards, only
doing so for improper reasons is.
Courageous
>You believe that a democratic path to socialist
>construction can make no difference relative to a
>tyrannical path to socialism?
What's the basis of your belief that a 51% majority
cannot be tyrannical?
Be that as it may, what I am doubtful of is the
ability of "socialism" to survive contact with
desire for freedom.
"Give people a choice, and they will choose to be
free."
The transformation going on within the former USSR
should be a good indicator to you how people will
react when they are faced with sociopolitical
interventions that torpedo their economy.
>You believe that every possible path to socialism
>will fail?
According to the textbook definition of socialism,
yes.
C//
rent@mob
> Book Title: The Ethical Foundations of Marxism
To be fair to Ron, last time I gave a substantive answer to a
libertarian 'challenge' to his ideology, the libertarian in question
was never seen again - Perhaps he had a pressing engagement, but I
suspect the explanation is more that libertarians' grasp of marxism
doesn't scratch much deeper than the verdict of pop history: there's
simply *zero* comprehension of the underlying philosophy.
Personally, it seems to me that libertarianism is a misnomer for what
should be two, quite separate political instincts:
One is for market anarchism, by which no organisation, democratic or
otherwise, shall be allowed to exert any kind of forceful control over
market relations. This 'negative libertarianism' (ie, against state
power) commits us to the coercion of market forces, from which we may
never seek to free ourselves through collectivities such as democratic
rule-making. Indeed, it does not even allow that market forces may be
coercive!
The other is for liberation from all arbitrary constraints, natural
and social. This 'positive libertarianism' (ie for human emancipation)
permits us to question whether market society delivers the most
freedom human nature can bear. Marxists find that it doesn't - that
true liberty may only be realised one or two steps beyond market
society. It recognises that for a vast majority of the world's human
beings, market relations are experienced as a type of slavery.
The basic marxian ethic is for the realisation of our species-being.
It's no use berating a marxist for unprincipled regimes until one has
a reasonable grasp of what principles they actually do profess.
Hope this helps!
rent@mob
jmh
Posting the TOC will not lay the geound work for
any discussion Ron. Posting the ideas and a good
summary of the argument (along with a refence
cite) might do so--assuming that it's a
discussion anyone here wants to have. Likewise,
posting the intro text or large excerps from a
book doesn't seem to stimulate any interest
as well.
Like several other people have discussion with
you ultimately proves fruitless--and you should
probably take my comment to heart as I have
probably been the one person here who has
attempted to give you the most sympothetic
read--as you never get past the same point
in the discussion. You stay with a very vague
and generalized analysis. This has not changed
in entire time I've read your posts. The result
is that there's really nothing to discuss because
there's no meat.
Now, if you want to start putting some meat into
the discussion, you do not need to post books,
TOCs or large quotes. Distile the idea and
supporting arguments into 250 words or less.
If there's something interesting there others
will comment and then the details of the argument
can be examined. If you then get stuck on a
point you can then cite the relevant parts of
your source. If no one wants to read and refute that
then the issue drops and the "point keepers" in the
discussion can each claim whatever victory they
think they've won.
jmh
jmh
michael price wrote:
> Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<XFSQb.11480$L04....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
>
>>John VanSickle wrote:
>> > "We've got the guns. Do as we say."
>>
>>Ron Allen answers:
>>There have been communist party tyrants. I do not
>>deny this fact, this reality. There have also
>>been christian tyrants. But, just as the ethical
>>foundations of christian faith oppose and condemn
>>the actions and effects of unethical christians,
>>so also do the ethical foundations of communist
>>belief oppose and condemn the actions and effects
>>of unethical communists.
>
>
> But communism is based on the ethic of "We have the
> guns do as we say.". Making people do what you say
> by force is not unethical by communist standards, only
> doing so for improper reasons is.
I think that's factually wrong. We certianly have
a number of communal arrangements that are not
based around the idea of might making right. Nor
are most of the earlier arguments for a communistic
social arrangement founded on violence. (At least
that's what I gatther from various postings of
those who come across as fairly well read in the
area.)
I don't dispute that plenty of times the result is
exactly as you describe. I think it better to consider
why the poor results and one analytic approach that I've
never seen anyone take strikes me as interesting. Ignoring
the Christian communal imperatives, most modern communial
theory contains, to me, an element of humanistic religion.
(I think Ron is a prime example of that belief system.)
Marx argued that religion was an opate that keeps the
masses subdued and submissive to the power elite. That
suggestions fits well with evaluating the performance
of large scale, state-based attempts at implementing a
communal society. The problem is that States are based
on violence. Is it that much of a wonder (not to many)
that we see the results we see.
Now Ron, of course, will point out that he's not a
statist--which I accept as truth. However, what he
won't say is how the large, over arching social
structural arrangement he advocates avoids being
a state structure. Nor does he seem to acknoledge
that that is being acdovated by anrchistist-
capitalism theory largely accomplished what
Ron is getting at. (Michael, I don't mean to
imply you're unaware of any of this--you've
had plenty of exchanges with Ron. This is mostly
for the new participants who are unaware of
the long history and probably don't have time
to read several years of archived postings.
They can sample the archives to test the
accuracy of my description.)
jmh
Sam Hutcheson
>Posting the TOC will not lay the geound work for
>any discussion Ron. Posting the ideas and a good
>summary of the argument (along with a refence
>cite) might do so--assuming that it's a
>discussion anyone here wants to have. Likewise,
>posting the intro text or large excerps from a
>book doesn't seem to stimulate any interest
>as well.
i, for the record, am happy to have ron posting these texts. it
provides a handy reference should I ever want to pull quotations (or
read things i haven't read), just a google-groups search away.
>Like several other people have discussion with
>you ultimately proves fruitless--and you should
>probably take my comment to heart as I have
>probably been the one person here who has
>attempted to give you the most sympothetic
>read--as you never get past the same point
>in the discussion. You stay with a very vague
>and generalized analysis. This has not changed
>in entire time I've read your posts. The result
>is that there's really nothing to discuss because
>there's no meat.
having seen the counter-discourse ron encounters (at least those that
are also cross-posted to alt.philosophy.debate) i think it's more than
worth pointing out that his interlocuters are very rarely anything
more than vague generalities and abject statements of blind faith
themselves. it's not like he's encountering interlocuters truly
interested in discourse. the respondents (including a couple in this
thread) are not interested in dialogue and thinking, but rather in
preaching the gospel according to them.
any failings in the threads ron participates in are hardly his sole
fault. from what i've seen, he's been more open to dialogue than the
folks he's talking to.
>Now, if you want to start putting some meat into
>the discussion, you do not need to post books,
>TOCs or large quotes. Distile the idea and
>supporting arguments into 250 words or less.
why should myriad and complex philosophical thoughts and ideas be
distilled down to "250 words or less?" the world is not
250-words-or-less simple, and honest interactions with it would be
lobotomized by such a reduction, IMHO.
s/
*****
"March 2003: Weapons of mass destruction.
June 2003: Weapons of mass destruction programs.
October 2003: Weapons of mass destruction-related programs.
January 2004: Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.
May 2004: Weapons of mass destruction-related program activity preplanning.
July 2004: Weapons of mass destruction-related program activity preplanning
scheduled for some year
October 2004: SYRIA HAS NUKES!"
-- Dvd Avins, rsb
John VanSickle
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> You believe that a democratic path to socialist
> construction can make no difference relative to a
> tyrannical path to socialism?
Yes.
> You believe that
> every possible path to socialism will fail?
Since socialism never accomplishes anything but the
empowerment of the socialist, yes.
> What path did capitalism take that made it so
> successful, and so innocent, so blameless?
The path of leaving innocent people alone.
Regards,
John
jmh
Sam Hutcheson wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 08:59:05 -0500, jmh <j_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Posting the TOC will not lay the geound work for
>>any discussion Ron. Posting the ideas and a good
>>summary of the argument (along with a refence
>>cite) might do so--assuming that it's a
>>discussion anyone here wants to have. Likewise,
>>posting the intro text or large excerps from a
>>book doesn't seem to stimulate any interest
>>as well.
>
>
> i, for the record, am happy to have ron posting these texts. it
> provides a handy reference should I ever want to pull quotations (or
> read things i haven't read), just a google-groups search away.
>
I think the posts where there is text involved is fine but
as it's not linked to any spcific discussion it doesn't
belong in the ng--my opinion, and I epressed why.
>>Like several other people have discussion with
>>you ultimately proves fruitless--and you should
>>probably take my comment to heart as I have
>>probably been the one person here who has
>>attempted to give you the most sympothetic
>>read--as you never get past the same point
>>in the discussion. You stay with a very vague
>>and generalized analysis. This has not changed
>>in entire time I've read your posts. The result
>>is that there's really nothing to discuss because
>>there's no meat.
>
>
> having seen the counter-discourse ron encounters (at least those that
> are also cross-posted to alt.philosophy.debate) i think it's more than
> worth pointing out that his interlocuters are very rarely anything
> more than vague generalities and abject statements of blind faith
> themselves. it's not like he's encountering interlocuters truly
> interested in discourse. the respondents (including a couple in this
> thread) are not interested in dialogue and thinking, but rather in
> preaching the gospel according to them.
I don't thin many ng discussions get mcuh past that
level but my complaint is that the discussions that
take place as the same one I've had with Ron over 5 years
back and his response are not more detailed or informed
than they were then. You can blame that lack of growth
on others if you wish.
> any failings in the threads ron participates in are hardly his sole
> fault. from what i've seen, he's been more open to dialogue than the
> folks he's talking to.
I agree that Ron is at a certianl level open to
dialogue but I've always found a point, and that
point doesn't appear to have shifted, beyond which
discussion becomes circular. The circle is the same
one I've gone around with him.
Since you mention a.p.d. I find it interesting that
that ng is apparently where Ron provides his more
detailed disucssions but he's never willing to share
them on this ng. It's rather odd behavior and I've
never bothered to verify his claims (or now yours).
If he wants to be considered seriously he sholdn't
require others to go search out his meanings in some
oether ng--he really could rewrite or cut and paste
from his sent items (I think it's save to assume he
saves them) or simply post to both groups.
>
>>Now, if you want to start putting some meat into
>>the discussion, you do not need to post books,
>>TOCs or large quotes. Distile the idea and
>>supporting arguments into 250 words or less.
>
>
> why should myriad and complex philosophical thoughts and ideas be
> distilled down to "250 words or less?" the world is not
> 250-words-or-less simple, and honest interactions with it would be
> lobotomized by such a reduction, IMHO.
They won't be but the basic thought and propositions
can be. The idea of a 250 word limit is that will allow
others--who some have suggested are really not informed
about the actual theory--to be given baby steps for the
discussion.
e=mc^2 doesn't labotimize Einstein. Assets = Liabilities +
net worth doesnt labotimize accounting. Man acts on
felt wants applying knowledge resources and an end-means
framework doesn't labotimize Mises. The three laws of
classical physics doesn't labotimize Newton. I think
therefore I am didn't labotimize Descartes (well most
don't think so).
jmh
John Jones
> Book Title: The Ethical Foundations of
> Marxism
Ron Allen
> You believe that a democratic path to socialist
> construction can make no difference relative to
> a tyrannical path to socialism?
Courageous wrote:
> What's the basis of your belief that a 51%
> majority cannot be tyrannical?
Ron Allen answers:
Human beings can be whatever they will to be.
A democratic and popular majority can be or
become tyrannical towards a dissident minority
if this is what they will.
However, unlike an élitist and minority ruling-
class, a numerical majority of a population does
not have a good reason to be tyrannical. There
is a certain and secure power in numbers, a kind
of confident optimism. A minority ruling-élite
fears the masses, and for some very good reasons.
And, this is why every minoritarian and élitist
régime has always been, more or less, tyrannical
towards the people, towards the subjugated people
who have been conquered and who will be crushed
if they dare to liberate themselves. The élites
have always beeb a domineering class; and, the
many, the people are domesticated so as to better
serve their masters.
It is always a surprize to hear people talk about
the tyranny of the majority, as if there are never
such a thing as the tyranny of the minority. It's
a simple matter to consider the many reasons why a
ruling élite must tyrannize the people. It is not
a fluke. The tyranny of ruling élites is not an
aleatory accident; it is not haphazard, it is not
happenstance. The ruling few has always feared
the many. This is what the tyranny of the many
really means: it is the majority bringing down the
ruling classes. The tyranny of the majority is
the people doing away with every kind of élitism.
To the ruling élites, it is indeed a tyranny for
the people to cast them down from power, to put an
end to cruel tyranny, by revolutionary force if it
is necessary.
The project and purpose of democracy is not to
create another tyranny, but to bring tyranny to
an end.
Courageous wrote:
> Be that as it may, what I am doubtful of is the
> ability of "socialism" to survive contact with
> desire for freedom.
Ron Allen answers:
I believe that socialism is a system that expands
the freedom, the equality, the dignity, and the
cooperation of people.
Courageous wrote:
> "Give people a choice, and they will choose to
> be free."
Ron Allen answers:
Yes; and this is the reason why every ruling-class
élite fears the people, and why they are alarmed
when the people start demanding more rights and
more freedom. This is why the tyrannical few have
always alerted us to the dangers of a tyranny of
the majority. There are a lot of people who are
foolish enough to believe such drivel. The rest
of us question such drivel. We wonder why there
ever is tyranny. We wonder what causes tyranny.
We wonder why power needs tyranny, or what kind of
power requires tyranny. If there is a confident
power in numbers, then perhaps it is precisely the
vulnerability of a despotic few that so motivates
every ruling élite to govern the masses with a
tyrannical grace, and with an oppressive charm.
If you identify and look to the interchangeable
causes of tyrannical governments, you will notice
a clear and obvious pattern to every tyranny.
Every tyranny has been a minoritarian government,
a government of a small group over the many, over
multitudes, over the people. An élitist group or
gang cannot govern an entire population unless it
uses coercive and despotic violence, whether it be
covert or overt. If the people can be taught to
believe in élitism, then this violence done to the
intellect can help to steer the population clear
of the other forms of brutal, even if systematic
and methodical, violence. One thing about the
violence used by the established powers is that it
can be so tidy, so regular, and so businesslike.
A good police state is one that does violence in
such a way that it is made invisible. And, the
victims are made as invisible as possible.
Courageous wrote:
> The transformation going on within the former
> USSR should be a good indicator to you how
> people will react when they are faced with
> sociopolitical interventions that torpedo their
> economy.
Ron Allen answers:
The fall of the Soviet Empire was a happy day!
But, we have not heard the last word as concerns
liberty, democracy, and socialism. Authoritarian
bolshevism has passed away; anarcho-communism has
not.
Ron Allen wrote:
> You believe that every possible path to
> socialism will fail?
Courageous wrote:
> According to the textbook definition of
> socialism, yes.
Ron Allen answers:
You like textbook definitions of words, of names,
and of ideas.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"Brave men earn the right to shape their own
destiny."
-- Arthur Meier Schlesinger, Jr.
Courageous
>You like textbook definitions of words, of names,
>and of ideas.
Textbook definitions acknowledge the common use and
meaning of words. If you use these words, that have
other meaning than what you mean, you are being sloppy.
Particularly in that the English language generally
has sufficient words so as to allow you to express what
you mean. You just have to choose those words, Ron.
C//
Ron Allen
> "We've got the guns. Do as we say."
Ron Allen wrote:
> There have been communist party tyrants. I
> do not deny this fact, this reality. There have
> also been christian tyrants. But, just as the
> ethical foundations of christian faith are said
> to oppose and condemn the actions and effects of
> unethical christians, so also do the ethical
> foundations of communist belief oppose and
> condemn the actions and effects of unethical
> communists.
Michael Price wrote:
> But communism is based on the ethic of "We
> have the guns do as we say.". Making people do
> what you say by force is not unethical by
> communist standards, only doing so for improper
> reasons is.
jmh wrote:
> I think that's factually wrong. We certianly
> have a number of communal arrangements that are
> not based around the idea of might making right.
> Nor are most of the earlier arguments for a
> communistic social arrangement founded on
> violence. (At least that's what I gather from
> various postings of those who come across as
> fairly well read in the area.)
> I don't dispute that plenty of times the result
> is exactly as you describe. I think it better to
> consider why the poor results and one analytic
> approach that I've never seen anyone take
> strikes me as interesting. Ignoring the
> Christian communal imperatives, most modern
> communial theory contains, to me, an element of
> humanistic religion. (I think Ron Allen is a
> prime example of that belief system.) Marx
> argued that religion was an opate that keeps the
> masses subdued and submissive to the power
> elite. That suggestion fits well with evaluating
> the performance of large scale, state-based
> attempts at implementing a communal society. The
> problem is that States are based on violence. Is
> it that much of a wonder (not to many) that we
> see the results we see.
> Now Ron Allen, of course, will point out that
> he's not a statist--which I accept as truth.
> However, what he won't say is how the large,
> over arching social structural arrangement he
> advocates avoids being a state structure. Nor
> does he seem to acknowledge that that is being
> advocated by anarcho-capitalist theory largely
> accomplished what Ron is getting at. (Michael, I
> don't mean to imply you're unaware of any of
> this--you've had plenty of exchanges with Ron
> Allen. This is mostly for the new participants
> who are unaware of the long history and probably
> don't have time to read several years of
> archived postings. They can sample the archives
> to test the accuracy of my description.)
Ron Allen answers:
I appreciate this posted message, and I am sorry
for taking so long to give an answer. It is very
difficult to quickly answer every message posted,
and many some of the old messages are pushed back,
and forgotten, until I take the time to look for
them.
I wish to make a few comments on what you have
said above.
First, the "might makes right" argument cuts both
ways. The argument has been used to justify every
élitist régime in history, every dictatorship,
every tyranny, every autocracy, every monarchy,
every oligarchy, every aristocracy, every
plutocracy, etc. Democratic theory has never said
that "might makes right", if by "right" is meant
"true, correct, and accurate". Dictatorships and
dogmatism are the best of bedfellows; they are
soul mates. There are two kinds of might, the
kind that comes from threatening and employing
violent force, and the kind that comes from simple
numbers. Numerical power does not need oppressive
power, and does not need to make use of repressive
measures in order to secure its power. There is a
natural power in numbers, and there is an
unnatural power in a minority arrogating power for
itself over the majority. Every élitism is always
a pretension, established upon a disdain for the
many, founded upon a contempt for the people.
Every lie contains some truth. "Might makes right"
is an idea that both falsifies and establishes the
truth. Arrogated might and usurped power both does
and does not make right. In order to understand
what democracy promises, we need to understand the
many meanings of "might", both natural might and
unnatural might. We also need to understand what
"right" means in its many different senses.
Secondly, you speak of the humanistic religion of
modern, secular socialist/communist theory. And
yes, I do consider myself to be a typical secular
humanist, and I have no problem with calling a
secular humanistic philosophy a "religion" or a
"faith". I find some very interesting parallels
between christian theological speculation and the
secular theoretical suppositions which constitute
both the modern liberal-bourgeois ideology of the
reactionary right, and the democratic-libertarian
ideology of the progressive left. The difference
I see between feudalism and modernism is more the
difference between a divine right of crowned kings
and a divine right of property and capital. I see
the rule of moneyed élites as no better than the
rule of sovereign monarchs.
Thirdly, you seem to be saying above that there is
some kind of connection, some affinity, some kind
of alliance between secular-humanism and state-
socialism, between atheism and authoritarianism.
Is this a correct reading of what you wrote above?
Do you believe that there is such a friendly, or a
family relationship between secular-humanism and
authoritarian-statism?
Fourthly, you seem to believe that I must show how
democratic-socialism can manage to avoid being or
becoming authoritarian-statism. And, you believe
that anarcho-capitalists have shown us sufficient
evidence that their anarcho-capitalist arrangement
can and will avoid authoritarian-statism.
I believe that the purpose and the function of the
political state must be considered before we can
even begin to consider why or how the state exists
in the first place. Marxist philosophers have
made a lot of theoretical attempts at explaining
the historical evolution of the political state.
I have no idea what ideological capitalists have
ever dealt with this historical and theoretical
question. How can you discuss the modern state
without discussion its historical introduction in
embryo, as well as its material foundation and its
eventful evolution? I have tried to intriduce a
discussion of the state, but the inferior quality
of the discussion makes any honest effort seem
just too fruitless to try.
I know that there are some few individuals posting
messages on this newsgroup who believe I am a liar
and a moron because I call myself a libertarian-
anarchist and a democratic-socialist. I believe
these are mutually consistent philosophies. And
not one of my opponents has been able to do any
better than insult and deride.
Again, I sincerely appreciate your post, quoted
above.
<><><><><><><><><><><>
"We are the choices we have made."
-- Meryl Streep
Ron Allen
> You like textbook definitions of words, of names,
> and of ideas.
Courageous wrote:
> Textbook definitions acknowledge the common use and
> meaning of words. If you use these words, that have
> other meaning than what you mean, you are being sloppy.
> Particularly in that the English language generally
> has sufficient words so as to allow you to express what
> you mean. You just have to choose those words, Ron.
Ron Allen answers:
Do you advocate some kind of tyranny of dictionary
definitions?
As I see it, I can write as I will, and I can use
words as I will. You can just keep on with your
dictionary-thumping all you will, but I will use
words as I see fit to use them. And, if you just
simply cannot manage to read with comprehension
what I write, then I'd say that's not my problem.
As a matter of fact, I took the time to quote a
number of reliable dictionaries that showed two
different definitions of socialism, one that was
authoritarian and statist, and another that was
libertarian and democratic. This time and effort
was entirely wasted on the likes of you.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"Free will and determinism are like a game of
cards. The hand that is dealt you represents
determinism. The way you play your hand
represents free will."
-- Anonymous Indian saying
Courageous
>As I see it, I can write as I will, and I can use
>words as I will. You can just keep on with your
>dictionary-thumping all you will, but I will use
>words as I see fit to use them.
The choice to communicate, or to not communicate, is
yours.
> And, if you just
>simply cannot manage to read with comprehension
>what I write, then I'd say that's not my problem.
I'd say that a great deal of people don't comprehend
what you're trying to say, and that's /your/ problem.
C//
jmh...@apex.home.net
I certainly will never defend the proposition that
might makes right. I will recognize it's pragmatic
results and the necessity of might--or some attempt
at it--but might is neither necessary nor sufficient
for right.
The failing of the above comment regarding the
numerical power of the many in the context of
a democratic process is that I've not seen any
strong cases made for how the many actually
manage to have and express their power within
a democratic decisions-making instutional
structure of any size at all. The organizational
and the informational costs are rise very rapidely
with size; the consistency of common interests
diminish rapidly as well. The lessons learned
from the analysis of democractic social/collective/
publi choice is that special interests dominate
democratic political decision-making.
Until you have something to say of substance
regarding instutional features of your democratic
socialistic society I will necessarily have to
assume that its' subject to all the same
structural flaws existing deomcratic systems
exhibit as will likewise be driven by the
special interest that can best take advantage
of the political insutions within the larger
social arrangement you advocate. All you offer
is a change in the elite.
For the dame reason the amorphus majority has
little effective political power both the
majorty as a whole and any number of subsets
which lack any other source of political power
will suffer a continued stream of abuses just
as exist in the current structure.
Put simply you offer no argument for any
improvement over what exists and the lack
of detail introduces plenty of scope for
deterioration. What should I find of interest
in your propositions other than a simplistic
message of optimism without a foundation?
My comments on the religious angle is that
the message of the large scale communal society
is that of faith that sacrificing for the
unknown and unidentifiable "others", the social
"brothers" and "sisters" is the same opium
Marx described religion as.
I don't suggest any intentional or direct
relatioship between the modern socialistic
"faith" and authoritarianism but rather
that the combination of that call to the
faithful and the known institutional flaws
of democratic decisions-makign at large
scales simply lead to such a result. It's
an unintended consequence that occurs
even when a vast majority of those within
the system are actually good people hoping
to help make a better world for everyone to
live peacfully and freely in.
> Fourthly, you seem to believe that I must show how
> democratic-socialism can manage to avoid being or
> becoming authoritarian-statism. And, you believe
> that anarcho-capitalists have shown us sufficient
> evidence that their anarcho-capitalist arrangement
> can and will avoid authoritarian-statism.
Yes, I do think you need to make the efffort to
defend your favored approach--especially as you've
never provded that effort in many, many years.
Yes, I do think the effort has been made for
the a-c approach. You may or may not find it
convincing--I dont' fully--but a serious effort
has been made both in academic circle and in
this forum. I've seen you cite a number of
old defense of your approach and some modern
criticism of captialism (which might be of
a form that is or is not consistent with the
a-c approach) but I've never seen you actually
actually provide a serious answer to a single
critique of your claims. I only see evasions,
more generalities or shifts of the topic.
> I believe that the purpose and the function of the
> political state must be considered before we can
> even begin to consider why or how the state exists
> in the first place. Marxist philosophers have
> made a lot of theoretical attempts at explaining
> the historical evolution of the political state.
> I have no idea what ideological capitalists have
> ever dealt with this historical and theoretical
> question. How can you discuss the modern state
> without discussion its historical introduction in
> embryo, as well as its material foundation and its
> eventful evolution? I have tried to intriduce a
> discussion of the state, but the inferior quality
> of the discussion makes any honest effort seem
> just too fruitless to try.
And yet you've not offered any discussion here on
either purpose or function. You've just sais that's
necessary. Why is it necessary? What is the purpose
of a political state? Are you advocating a state
and is that state of the same character that
everyone else has used that term to mean: a
monopoly on the use of force? What is the
function of a political state? What are the
limits of that state or polity? How are these
minority rights manifest in the political state's
purposes and functions? What is the structure that
allows the accomplishment of the purpose of the political
state? If you say democracy is the strucutre, well
how so? What type of democracy and what does that
actualy mean to you? (In words other might actually
understand--echoing Couragous here.)
> I know that there are some few individuals posting
> messages on this newsgroup who believe I am a liar
> and a moron because I call myself a libertarian-
> anarchist and a democratic-socialist. I believe
> these are mutually consistent philosophies. And
> not one of my opponents has been able to do any
> better than insult and deride.
>
> Again, I sincerely appreciate your post, quoted
> above.
I think most of that is a combination of bad taste
in rhetorical style and frustration--but then
I've certainly be wrong in my assessment of other's
in this group before so maybe they do think of
you as a liar and moron. If I'm wrong about the
basis of the response then you can take some
satisfaction that their repeated willingness to
engage you at that level must be a result of
birds of a feather flocking together ;-)
(And I think I've successfully insulted the lot
of us with that one.)
You do bring some of the problem upon yourself
when you say things like you will define words
as you want and not pay too much head to any
existing and widely accepted meanings. The
word democracy appears to be one of them that
causes a great deal of difficulty here.
jmh
OsherD
Capitalists of various types, which certainly describe ideals but may
not describe what many people actually believe (for example, religious
non-greedy people), there is a more subtle difficulty with all these
philosophies, I think. Imagine that you are "seeing" the forest while
looking at an individual tree, and seeing individual trees while
looking at a plurality called a forest. You value both the individual
tree and the forest roughly equally and highly. Marxism says that the
forest is more valuable than the trees and that any individual trees
can be chopped down to "protect" the forest more or less, while
Capitalism in the free-market individualistic form says that either the
individual tree is more valuable than the forest and the forest could
be chopped down to protect the individual tree (whatever that means) or
that the market is more valuable than either of them (whatever that
means). If these last two alternatives seem as silly as the first
ones, maybe that is the problem - we need to provide explcit ways which
we tell to the public and codify in laws by which we protect or see the
"tree for the forest and the forest for the tree" to quote the familiar
expression with human beings both individual and plurality replacing or
at least substituting for tree and forest respectively. We cannot make
the choice in all good conscience of plurality over individual or vice
versa, not even for the sake of elections or for the illusion that if
we put in a "good guy" used to pluralities we'll end up with good for
pluralities and individuals.
Osher Doctorow
Kamerynn
Courageous wrote:
>>You like textbook definitions of words, of names,
>>and of ideas.
>
>
> Textbook definitions acknowledge the common use
Kam:
Perhaps "the common use" contains a grammatical error.
"The" is a definite article, either indicating that you
believe all words have only one common use, or that you
are careless with words.
Words have multiple uses. If you define your opponent's
words for him or her, you are simply throwing sucker punches
at strawmen.
> and
> meaning of words. If you use these words, that have
> other meaning than what you mean, you are being sloppy.
Kam:
The use of words *evolves* through analogy with other
uses of those same words. Proclaiming such, and the obvious
consequence that words have multiple meanings, is far from
sloppy. Narrow minded word tactics, such as "no, *I* define
such and such (and then proceed to criticize it)" are sloppy
at best.
> Particularly in that the English language generally
> has sufficient words so as to allow you to express what
> you mean.
Kam:
...because it has evolved through analogous usage.
It will continue to do so. Socialism will continue to
be attached to theories that attack privatization in favour
of something else, just as it has been for over half a
century. Ignore some uses so that you can live in a happy,
narrow-minded world, if you like. Pleasant dreams.
Kamerynn
Courageous wrote:
Kam:
Perhaps he's right; perhaps a "social and political
philosophy for dummies" should be printed. I suppose that
it wouldn't substitute for the variety of in depth studies
of individual systems contained in an actual eduaction, though.
Courageous
> Words have multiple uses. If you define your opponent's
>words for him or her, you are simply throwing sucker punches
>at strawmen.
Alas, if party or parties are asked for specifics, and evade,
the responsibility for lack of clarity would be theirs.
C//
Ron Allen
> As I see it, I can write as I will, and I can
> use words as I will. You can just keep on with
> your dictionary-thumping all you will, but I
> will use words as I see fit to use them.
Courageous wrote:
> The choice to communicate, or to not
> communicate, is yours.
Ron Allen answers:
Yes, this is true.
Ron Allen wrote:
> And, if you just simply cannot manage to read
> with comprehension what I write, then I'd say
> that's not my problem.
Courageous wrote:
> I'd say that a great deal of people don't
> comprehend what you're trying to say, and that's
> /your/ problem.
Ron Allen answers:
If you cannot comprehend what I communicate, then
why do you pretend to comprehend in your responses
to what I write? Why don't you just say that you
do not understand what I am saying?
<><><><><><><><>
"Your karma is not mine."
-- Charles Manson
Courageous
>If you cannot comprehend what I communicate, then
>why do you pretend to comprehend in your responses
>to what I write? Why don't you just say that you
>do not understand what I am saying?
I, the singular, and we, the several of us, have asked
/many/ times for elaboration on what you mean. You puff
out your digital chest and act indignant that you'd be
asked to explain.
Consider this a firm digital whack to your nose.
You're really needing one right about now.
C//
Ron Allen
> If you cannot comprehend what I communicate,
> then why do you pretend to comprehend in your
> responses to what I write? Why don't you just
> say that you do not understand what I am saying?
Courageous wrote:
> I, the singular, and we, the several of us, have
> asked /many/ times for elaboration on what you
> mean. You puff out your digital chest and act
> indignant that you'd be asked to explain.
> Consider this a firm digital whack to your nose.
> You're really needing one right about now.
Ron Allen answers:
No, you do not so much ask me what i mean by what
I write. Rather, you all keep telling me that I
am a liar, or a moron, and that I advocate tyranny
and slavery and murder and theft.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger."
-- Abbie Hoffman
jmh...@apex.home.net
We "all" do not do that. Most of us have actally asked
and presented some bases for our questions and yet
remain as ignorant to your meanings and essentially
only informed about what label--the actual meaning
of which is also not all that clear-- you wish to apply
to yourself and your system.
jmh
Courageous
>No, you do not so much ask me what i mean by what
>I write.
Not true. I've asked you many times for examples of
how what you say would be realized in the real world,
to get an idea for what you actually mean.
> Rather, you all keep telling me that I
>am a liar, or a moron, ...
You're confusing me for someone else.
C//
Courageous
>We "all" do not do that. Most of us have actally asked
>and presented some bases for our questions and yet
>remain as ignorant to your meanings and essentially
>only informed about what label--the actual meaning
>of which is also not all that clear-- you wish to apply
>to yourself and your system.
I concur with this remark.
C//