dmfdmf's recent activity
-
Comment on When did everyone become socialist? in ~misc
-
Comment on When did everyone become socialist? in ~misc
dmfdmf (edited )Link ParentIt was a rhetorical jab at all the advocates who want an "ideal" socialist society but every time it is tried it ends in disaster. Read my response to @CALICO or even better read Rand's book on...this comment has a number of bizarre aspects. firstly, how do you "collapse" into a utopia when utopia is inherently a good state of being?
It was a rhetorical jab at all the advocates who want an "ideal" socialist society but every time it is tried it ends in disaster.
secondly, by what standard can it be claimed that all of the modern, major american parties do not represent capitalism?
Read my response to @CALICO or even better read Rand's book on Capitalism.
tldr: Political systems derive from morality, everyone is an altruist (Left or Right) which leads to socialism. Capitalism rests on egoism which the Left has completely abandoned and the Right is too cowardly to defend.
thirdly, how can leftists be "fascists" when fascism is an inherently right wing ideology with inherently right wing traits?
This is what the left wants you to believe. Fascism does not mean bad people on the Right.
Fascism, communism and capitalism are essentially economic terms (related to the production of wealth). The key concept to understand is individual rights, particularly your right to property. Without getting too deep into a political discussion, the right to property means the right to keep and power to control the use and disposal of your own property. Under communism all property is owned and controlled by the state. Under capitalism all property is privately owned and controlled. Fascism is the tricky case. Under fascism property is still "privately" owned but its use is controlled by the state. In other words, under fascism one's title to property is a meaningless piece of paper since ownership without control destroys the concept of property rights.
Both communism and fascism are variants of socialism so it can be applied to the Left or the Right. More importantly, due to the historical importance of private property rights in the US, we are moving toward fascism since that gives the facade of respecting property rights while destroying the right to property. Americans will never vote in communism but they may fall for fascism, Left or Right doesn't really matter.
-
Comment on When did everyone become socialist? in ~misc
dmfdmf Link ParentNo offense taken. To convince you I can only appeal to your reason and honesty. You sound philosophically educated so you understand that your moral ideal (altruism) is what determines your...No offense taken. To convince you I can only appeal to your reason and honesty.
You sound philosophically educated so you understand that your moral ideal (altruism) is what determines your political ideal (socialism). Rand's argument is that her moral ideal (egoism) implies her political ideal (capitalism). (Side note, the Right holds altruism as a moral ideal too which is why they do not represent nor can they morally defend capitalism, common belief that the Right is capitalist notwithstanding).
Historically in every country where socialism has been accepted it leads to economic and social disaster at best and genocide at worst. As a socialist I would want to know why and how this happens so that the problem can be fixed. The intellectual apologists for socialism either ignore, minimize or evade the question or rationalize it with non-sense like historical accidents (e.g. war, famine, etc.) or a bad man (e.g. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc) that corrupted a "good" system. Perhaps you don't support the "hard" socialism that leads to all the disasters but a hybrid with the material benefits of capitalism and the benevolence of socialism. But Rand explains why this mixture is impossible to sustain and the logic of events (and the moral ideals) will always drive the society to one pole or the other. Rand answers all these questions (and much more) and as a socialist you should want to know the implication of your beliefs.
Of course, you didn't say it but reading between the lines of your comment you probably think "why should I read this crackpot, it is a waste of my time" and given your context it is, so how about a more practical reason to read Rand?
After Trump won I knew what was next, the left would press the moral not the political issues to regain power. I have seen it all my life and it is their ace in the hole. Since both the Left and Right share the same morality of altruism this is the winning argument (political views are dependent ones moral ideals). We see this already with the run up to the election when AOC proclaimed that "Being Morally Right Is More Important Than Being Factually Correct". The Right is terrified of AOC because they lose this attack every time and have no answers, no rebuttal.
Trump is a pragmatist and doesn't hold any clear moral or political principles which makes him and the Right vulnerable. The Left is morally consistent on altruism and all the bickering and debate is on what form of socialism is practical or politically feasible at this time. The Right is a mixed bag of altruists, some of whom are lamely trying to defend capitalism but are learning that it can't done on the moral ideal of altruism. In past elections cycles the Right has never had any moral arguments to push back against the Left so they always lose in the long run. They share altruism as the moral ideal which is why the Right has slowly adopted ALL the Left's political goals and policies, albeit in watered down form.
So what has changed? Rand's ideas have been seeping into the culture for over 50 years now and I think you will start to be challenged by moral and political questions that you can't answer coming from her influence. After decades of ignoring her, smearing her, misrepresenting and misunderstanding her -- she is still around and still very popular. The one thing the Left or Right can't do is answer her arguments and they are just hoping that she goes away and that people will dismiss her on their say-so without ever reading firsthand what she actually wrote. But her popularity is not an accident and there are huge numbers of citizens that don't want socialism but don't know how to defend capitalism but will find and use her moral arguments to defend their position. As a socialist you should be ready for this, and if she is an ignoramus as claimed it should be easy work for you to demolish her arguments and win the debates of the day. In other words know your enemy.
-
Comment on When did everyone become socialist? in ~misc
dmfdmf LinkBefore the US collapses into a Socialist utopia, I hope young people learn what Capitalism is and what moral standard it rests on. Neither party represents Capitalism today and, if not clear to...Before the US collapses into a Socialist utopia, I hope young people learn what Capitalism is and what moral standard it rests on. Neither party represents Capitalism today and, if not clear to you, the left is just as fascist as the right. For those interested I recommend the following books by Ayn Rand;
-
Comment on Are we on the road to civilization collapse? in ~humanities.history
dmfdmf (edited )Link ParentThe title article discusses the collapse of past civilizations and our current trend toward collapse and argues that the cause of the collapse is rooted in the dominant philosophic ideas of the...The title article discusses the collapse of past civilizations and our current trend toward collapse and argues that the cause of the collapse is rooted in the dominant philosophic ideas of the times.
Intro paragraph;
When a man, a business corporation or an entire society is approaching bankruptcy, there are two courses that those involved can follow: they can evade the reality of their situation and act on a frantic, blind, range-of-the-moment expediency—not daring to look ahead, wishing no one would name the truth, yet desperately hoping that something will save them somehow—or they can identify the situation, check their premises, discover their hidden assets and start rebuilding.
America, at present, is following the first course. The gray-ness, the stale cynicism, the noncommittal cautiousness, the guilty evasiveness of our public voices suggest the attitude of the courtiers in the story “The Emperor’s New Clothes” who professed admiration for the Emperor’s non-existent garments, having accepted the assertion that anyone who failed to perceive them was morally depraved at heart.
Let me be the child in the story and declare that the Emperor is naked—or that America is culturally bankrupt.
In any given period of history, a culture is to be judged by its dominant philosophy, by the prevalent trend of its intellectual life as expressed in morality, in politics, in economics, in art. Professional intellectuals are the voice of a culture and are, therefore, its leaders, its integrators and its bodyguards. America’s intellectual leadership has collapsed. Her virtues, her values, her enormous power are scattered in a silent underground and will remain private, subjective, historically impotent if left without intellectual expression. America is a country without voice or defense—a country sold out and abandoned by her intellectual bodyguards.
-
Comment on Are we on the road to civilization collapse? in ~humanities.history
dmfdmf LinkThe situation is dire but not hopeless. For those who are interested in a proper historical review and not a collection of historical concretes that explains nothing, I recommend reading the title...The situation is dire but not hopeless. For those who are interested in a proper historical review and not a collection of historical concretes that explains nothing, I recommend reading the title article in Ayn Rand's compendium For the New Intellectual
See my reply to @alyaza.