I Had a Revelation!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Way to go florelius!

Sincerely. You’ve just done something that many people don’t accomplish in their ENTIRE LIVES, and that is to rethink the foundational framework and assumptions that you believe. That is extremely difficult to do on many levels, not the least of which is that it basically amounts to a) admitting you were wrong, which is something people positively HATE and b) is anti-ego. Most people live by their egos.

This is invaluable and as long as you continually do this throughout your life–and stay open to potentially changing everything you believe–you will find a deep well of wisdom piling up, one that is not dependent on fads or current academic thinking but rather driven by deep thought and critical thinking. Thats a foundation of wisdom my friend, not “knowledge”. The two are quite, QUITE distinct.

I’m not claiming to be “wise” but the one thing that I have work hard at mastering is the ability to constantly and continually analyze my beliefs and philosophy. This has enabled me to see things in a much wider scale, and has helped me immeasurably both in my personal life and in my philosophical life. May I never cease doing so.

I’m sure I’ll probably disagree with a large portion of what you eventually end up advocating, but that’s neither here nor there–it’s the journey that counts. I, for one, wish you well on it.[/quote]

thank you aragorn. I agree with you on all counts.

I dont know where you stand on political issues, but it is offcourse a big posibility that we disagree on many things.

42

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I smiled big time when I read the title.[/quote]

because I used a word thats common in religious terminology?[/quote]

No, because I know you got rid of that Marxist nonsense. ;)[/quote]

LOL
sorry to disappoint you I still hold Marx in higest regard, as I hold adam smith in hig regard.
Its moronic to dismiss them completly, they have both contributet with important perspectives to our
collective knowledge base. ( hope that made sense haha )

but I digress. When you get rid of your libertarian nonsense we can share a glass of your monestary ale
your where talking about in another thread. I assume you are buying.

[/quote]

What do you like about Marx? My problem with him is that his solutions violate basic psychological principals, particularly opperant conditioning. Opperant conditioning is the basis for most human behavior his principals to work require that people’s efforts give them only a small percentage of their yield and that someone who who does not put forth effort reap the same yield.

Actually, I think Marx was wrong about everything. Anybody can criticize, but putting forth valid solutions is something else altogether. Where ever marxism has been tried it has failed. It eneviatalby requires force to enforce the desired behavior.
I know the attractiveness of it is that everyone is provided for therefore one has the “freedom” to pursue their one artistic and intellectual endeavors. What inevitably happens though is that people are trying to make up for the short comings of a failing system and therefore do not have time for their personal persuites.
Another issue, is that cash flows in one direction, up. So when the powers that be redistribute the mula, there is far less of it coming down then going up. Eventually, the well runs dry.
I could go on, but those are some of the reasons I think Marx was fundamentally wrong.
[/quote]

I like he`s materialist oultlook on history. I think he is able to capture the nature of capitalism very well and I like the way he writes. the manifesto is as witty as it gets in political philosophy. I think therefor he can be a good tool in understanding society, but as an ideology it fails because it is not really a ideology in the first place. Its a economical and historical method that can be valid if used correctly, but that also has its shortcomings.

43

[quote]ericcartman wrote:
As Socrates said, “The wise man knows one thing; it is that he knows nothing.”[/quote]

The more I know the dumber I feel.

44

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
I went to sleep an hour ago, but I could not sleep becuase of all this thougts in my head.
They where toughts of something that has bothered me for a long time, but I havent be able to see
it clearly before now. The thing that have been bothering me is my own ideology. After being at
university for over 2years, arguing on this forum alot the last year and taking political philosophy
this semester it strikes me how many flawes there are in all political ideologys. And marxism are no
exception. It hits the nail on somethings, but it is not able to explain the entire society.

The catalyst for this was the “pete eyre” tread where I could not find any counterargument based on my ideology in the end.
Therefor I would not base my entire understanding on society and political issues on a ideology that comes short in the end. Therefor I am no longer a selfproclaimed marxist for now. I will use this next year to digg into all sorts of political theory and I will try to keep an open mind.

ps. This does not meen I have changed my opinion on many subjects. I am still against aggressiv warfare and occupation. I am still concerned that there are huge difference between poor and rich. I am still for a welfare state in a capitalist context. I am still sceptic to any talk about anti-immigration, nationalism aka everything that smells of fascism, nazism and racism and I am still for equality between the sexes.

I wish to thank PWI for this revelation, because throwing my arguments in here helped to reach it.

Respect to all of you guys from Florelius.

[/quote]

Wanna know the main source of all this stuff? A planned society is impossible. A planned society is based on continuous functions (econometrics, sociology, poli sci, and such) and its all simply impossible. Human society is chaotic and discontinuous. This is one reason I stand for LF Capitalism – anyone who plans anything for whole societies is insane.

Now, of course, we can attempt it. As our society breaks down, we will adopt some sort of National Socialism, a state of electronic feudalism. It’ll succeed for a while before we launch into ‘Mad Max’ land, but that’s a few decades down the road, and I’ll be gone.

So…fck it…
[/quote]

Sounds like a good movie background.

45

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
You were an admitted Marxist?

Fuck. Well… I once thought I was a socialist. I also once though Ronald Reagan was awesome and Ayn Rand was a great author.

We all have to start making sense some day. [/quote]

Do you dislike Ms. Rand’s writing style or her philosophy? I’m a Randite (though not dogmatically so) and would enjoy reading counterarguments to her philosophy.

Just to expand – I believe that one can have subjective experiences of God and that these are not delusional. Ms. Rand would kick me out of her group (as she did Rothbard) for such ideas.
[/quote]

She was a terrible writer, and her political philosophy was childish and overly simplistic.

[/quote]

How so? Philosophy that’s too complicated is worthless to most people so even if her’s is those things, that doesn’t make it incorrect or worthless. I hear this description of her philosophy a lot but never an adequate explanation of why that makes it wrong.

What’s wrong with plain and simple? That’s worse than complex and confusing?
[/quote]

Politics and economics are complicated. Ideologies like libertarianism and socialism are too simple to be useful on a broad scale… they have their uses, but in limited situations and combined with other ideas.

What’s wrong with plain and simple is that it blunts the critical thinking skills necessary to come up with solutions to complex problems. [/quote]

Occam’s razor. Politics and economics is easy, any complication is complication for complications sake. Is the government worthless because there is a intertwined conspiracy by greedy people to control the world, or because there are greedy people.[/quote]

Sometimes, you can only simplify something so much before it’s just wrong or misleading.

46

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
You were an admitted Marxist?

Fuck. Well… I once thought I was a socialist. I also once though Ronald Reagan was awesome and Ayn Rand was a great author.

We all have to start making sense some day. [/quote]

Do you dislike Ms. Rand’s writing style or her philosophy? I’m a Randite (though not dogmatically so) and would enjoy reading counterarguments to her philosophy.

Just to expand – I believe that one can have subjective experiences of God and that these are not delusional. Ms. Rand would kick me out of her group (as she did Rothbard) for such ideas.
[/quote]

She was a terrible writer, and her political philosophy was childish and overly simplistic.

[/quote]

Stephen King thinks she is a great writer in certain aspects. Specifically her dialogue. [/quote]

What more evidence do I need?

For the sake of a few laughs, here’s my impression of Ayn Rand’s writing.

Real men are awesome. Here’s why I think real men are awesome… and, here’s how I think you can become a real man… And, if you are a real man, you are awesome… By the way taxes are bad, and real men are awesome… the more awesome a man is, the more taxes suck. By thy way, have I told you how awesome real men are?

The greatest tragedy that could occur in this world is a real, awesome man having to pay taxes… have I told you how awesome real men are?

Character 1 - “I am an awesome and real man. I have done awesome things like build awesome buildings.”

Character 2 - “That’s awesome!”

Character 1 - “Would you like for me to show you how you can be awesome like me?”

Character 2 - “I already know, because I too am awesome. Anyway, I heard the narrator say something about it. In fact, aren’t you the narrator?”

Character 1 - “No. I am an awesome, real man. Stop trying to tax me and destroy all of my awesome accomplishments. Actually, now that you mention it, we both kind of sound like the narrator.”

Character 2 - “That must be why we are so awesome!”

47

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
Let it never be said PWI has never changed someone’s opinion.[/quote]

I count myself as the changed, I started back in the day as a NEO-CON as can be whitnessed in many of my postings prior to say 2008 or so. I am decidedly more libratarian now.

V[/quote]

And a whole lot Gheyer too![/quote]

Says the man with the homoerotic profile picture.

48

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Way to go florelius!

Sincerely. You’ve just done something that many people don’t accomplish in their ENTIRE LIVES, and that is to rethink the foundational framework and assumptions that you believe. That is extremely difficult to do on many levels, not the least of which is that it basically amounts to a) admitting you were wrong, which is something people positively HATE and b) is anti-ego. Most people live by their egos.

This is invaluable and as long as you continually do this throughout your life–and stay open to potentially changing everything you believe–you will find a deep well of wisdom piling up, one that is not dependent on fads or current academic thinking but rather driven by deep thought and critical thinking. Thats a foundation of wisdom my friend, not “knowledge”. The two are quite, QUITE distinct.

I’m not claiming to be “wise” but the one thing that I have work hard at mastering is the ability to constantly and continually analyze my beliefs and philosophy. This has enabled me to see things in a much wider scale, and has helped me immeasurably both in my personal life and in my philosophical life. May I never cease doing so.

I’m sure I’ll probably disagree with a large portion of what you eventually end up advocating, but that’s neither here nor there–it’s the journey that counts. I, for one, wish you well on it.[/quote]

thank you aragorn and I agree completly with your post.

49

[quote]florelius wrote:
Being dogmatic is absolutly foolish.[/quote]

Trying to get at something?

50

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“The man who views his world at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life”

Muhammad Ali[/quote]

This is funny in a melancholy way.

51

Congrats on staying open to continued growth and development. I encourage you to stay on that path the rest of your life. A good quote to live by:

52

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I smiled big time when I read the title.[/quote]

because I used a word thats common in religious terminology?[/quote]

No, because I know you got rid of that Marxist nonsense. ;)[/quote]

LOL
sorry to disappoint you I still hold Marx in higest regard, as I hold adam smith in hig regard.
Its moronic to dismiss them completly, they have both contributet with important perspectives to our
collective knowledge base. ( hope that made sense haha )

but I digress. When you get rid of your libertarian nonsense we can share a glass of your monestary ale
your where talking about in another thread. I assume you are buying.

[/quote]

What do you like about Marx? My problem with him is that his solutions violate basic psychological principals, particularly opperant conditioning. Opperant conditioning is the basis for most human behavior his principals to work require that people’s efforts give them only a small percentage of their yield and that someone who who does not put forth effort reap the same yield.

Actually, I think Marx was wrong about everything. Anybody can criticize, but putting forth valid solutions is something else altogether. Where ever marxism has been tried it has failed. It eneviatalby requires force to enforce the desired behavior.
I know the attractiveness of it is that everyone is provided for therefore one has the “freedom” to pursue their one artistic and intellectual endeavors. What inevitably happens though is that people are trying to make up for the short comings of a failing system and therefore do not have time for their personal persuites.
Another issue, is that cash flows in one direction, up. So when the powers that be redistribute the mula, there is far less of it coming down then going up. Eventually, the well runs dry.
I could go on, but those are some of the reasons I think Marx was fundamentally wrong.
[/quote]

I like he`s materialist oultlook on history. I think he is able to capture the nature of capitalism very well and I like the way he writes. the manifesto is as witty as it gets in political philosophy. I think therefor he can be a good tool in understanding society, but as an ideology it fails because it is not really a ideology in the first place. Its a economical and historical method that can be valid if used correctly, but that also has its shortcomings.[/quote]

Everybody says something like “if used correctly”, but it’s really impossible to get all parties on board. Perhaps as an observational tool it can be useful, but I think it’s flawed at it’s core. It requires that people change and that shit just ain’t gonna happen. Folks are inherently selfish. Any successful socio-economic model has to consider that people are selfish / social creatures who love conflict. Should be easy enough!
I don’t believe any one method is best over all. Different methods at different levels of society are needed.

53

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I smiled big time when I read the title.[/quote]

because I used a word thats common in religious terminology?[/quote]

No, because I know you got rid of that Marxist nonsense. ;)[/quote]

LOL
sorry to disappoint you I still hold Marx in higest regard, as I hold adam smith in hig regard.
Its moronic to dismiss them completly, they have both contributet with important perspectives to our
collective knowledge base. ( hope that made sense haha )

but I digress. When you get rid of your libertarian nonsense we can share a glass of your monestary ale
your where talking about in another thread. I assume you are buying.

[/quote]

What do you like about Marx? My problem with him is that his solutions violate basic psychological principals, particularly opperant conditioning. Opperant conditioning is the basis for most human behavior his principals to work require that people’s efforts give them only a small percentage of their yield and that someone who who does not put forth effort reap the same yield.

Actually, I think Marx was wrong about everything. Anybody can criticize, but putting forth valid solutions is something else altogether. Where ever marxism has been tried it has failed. It eneviatalby requires force to enforce the desired behavior.
I know the attractiveness of it is that everyone is provided for therefore one has the “freedom” to pursue their one artistic and intellectual endeavors. What inevitably happens though is that people are trying to make up for the short comings of a failing system and therefore do not have time for their personal persuites.
Another issue, is that cash flows in one direction, up. So when the powers that be redistribute the mula, there is far less of it coming down then going up. Eventually, the well runs dry.
I could go on, but those are some of the reasons I think Marx was fundamentally wrong.
[/quote]

I like he`s materialist oultlook on history. I think he is able to capture the nature of capitalism very well and I like the way he writes. the manifesto is as witty as it gets in political philosophy. I think therefor he can be a good tool in understanding society, but as an ideology it fails because it is not really a ideology in the first place. Its a economical and historical method that can be valid if used correctly, but that also has its shortcomings.[/quote]

Everybody says something like “if used correctly”, but it’s really impossible to get all parties on board. Perhaps as an observational tool it can be useful, but I think it’s flawed at it’s core. It requires that people change and that shit just ain’t gonna happen. Folks are inherently selfish. Any successful socio-economic model has to consider that people are selfish / social creatures who love conflict. Should be easy enough!
I don’t believe any one method is best over all. Different methods at different levels of society are needed.[/quote]

It would help if you where a bit more specific. where did marx say that people are not selfish?

  1. You claim we love conflict, what do you meen with this sentence? that we seek out conflict for the soul purpose of conflict becuae we love it. Or do you meen that people often ends up in conflict with eachother because we seek out our selfinterrests and often its opposed to other peoples interrests. If you meen the last I agree, our history is full of conflict based on different interrests.
54

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Being dogmatic is absolutly foolish.[/quote]

Trying to get at something?[/quote]

what do you meen?

55

good for you, Flor. PWI has certainly changed my opinion in some issues, two of them have been due to Chushin, lol.

56

[quote]florelius wrote:
I went to sleep an hour ago, but I could not sleep becuase of all this thougts in my head.
They where toughts of something that has bothered me for a long time, but I havent be able to see
it clearly before now. The thing that have been bothering me is my own ideology. After being at
university for over 2years, arguing on this forum alot the last year and taking political philosophy
this semester it strikes me how many flawes there are in all political ideologys. And marxism are no
exception. It hits the nail on somethings, but it is not able to explain the entire society.

The catalyst for this was the “pete eyre” tread where I could not find any counterargument based on my ideology in the end.
Therefor I would not base my entire understanding on society and political issues on a ideology that comes short in the end. Therefor I am no longer a selfproclaimed marxist for now. I will use this next year to digg into all sorts of political theory and I will try to keep an open mind.

ps. This does not meen I have changed my opinion on many subjects. I am still against aggressiv warfare and occupation. I am still concerned that there are huge difference between poor and rich. I am still for a welfare state in a capitalist context. I am still sceptic to any talk about anti-immigration, nationalism aka everything that smells of fascism, nazism and racism and I am still for equality between the sexes.

I wish to thank PWI for this revelation, because throwing my arguments in here helped to reach it.

Respect to all of you guys from Florelius.
[/quote]

Actually, I respect you a lot more for being very honest (and have always thought you were). Far be it from a lot of people to try and engage the issues thoughtfully. Not sure where this will take you, but that’s not the point. Good luck on your investigations.

As for ideologies, the one turning point for me (I considered myself a moderate socialist for several years) was the book “Reflections on a ravaged Century” by Robert Conquest:

Why is this book important? Conquest – who started as a dedicated communist party member – wrote several very carefully researched books about the Soviets back starting in the 1960’s. He was ignored or criticized by the academic community and really did suffer quite a bit of hardship and censorship from them. Later it turned out that he was more than a little right, that he had managed to get a highly accurate portrait in spite of all obstacles. His book “The Great Terror” is one of the best and most historically accurate books ever written. He has a sincere commitment to the truth and is downright fearless (he’s still alive and kicking at 90+). I would rank him as one of the best thinkers about history and its meaning ever.

This book is about what he as a top-notch historian thinks went wrong with the 20th century and it boils down to ideology. He left the communist party badly disillusioned. So this is a book about what Ideologies are (from someone who was there) as well as what they do and how they go so dreadfully wrong. He also takes aim at a lot of his fellow academics (who disproportionately shape public opinion with almost no oversight, I might add, being one). Don’t forget several of these people he discusses openly lied to refute Conquest’s work and carried out widespread character assassination against him. He understands them for being the self-righteous, self-appointed aristocracy they are.

Oh one other thing. Jean Francois Revel’s book “Last Exit to Utopia” makes a very good point about ideologues (=people who follow Ideologies) and that is that they have a hard time understanding the people they disagree with don’t have an opposing Ideology. The assumption, for instance, of a lot of Socialists is that there is an organized body of thought called Capitalism that is their exact opposite. So since they are in favor of equality, social justice, etc the other people must be against it. What this does is reduce all the opposition to being simply evil, which is convenient and comforting. If you are really trying to get away from an Ideology you are very similar to someone who is getting away from a bad religious cult. Indeed, Ideologies are the secular equivalent to revealed religions.

– jj

57

to jj-dude:
thanks man. I will try to check these books out when I get the time, and btw good post :slight_smile:

58

Some great posts here. And btw, Conquest = the most awesome last name ever. Just bad ass.

59

The norm these days is for the happiest to be those best at lying to themselves; it’s no easy task to turn your hardest hammer inward to test the strength of what you believe to be the nature of things: few try and even fewer try again… and again…

Truth stands proud and weary over the corpses of a thousand slain convictions - fists clenched ready and waiting.

60

I’m actually saving this:

If that’s original, it’s good shit. If not, where did it come from?