Platt and Roger, etc.
Let me begin with the dictionary definition of a word that is crucial to
getting a grip a the true meaning of socialism. I think you both rely on
conventional wisdom in your views about socialism, and while this is
completely understandable, it should be pointed out that conventional wisdom
is very often a big pile of shit. In this case it is even worse than that
becasue we've all had to endure nearly 60 years of cold-war propaganda,
paranoia and demonization. Its hard to imagine where there is a case more in
need of cup-emptying. I beg you to toss that nasty swill and suspend your
attitudes and beliefs for just a while, just long enough to read this post.
The crucial word is not at all political. The word is "NOMINAL" adj. 1.
being such in name only; so-called, putative. 2. named as a mere matter of
form, being trifling in comparison with the actual value. I think its
important to know this word in order to clear up misconceptions like this
one from Platt...
Platt said:
Never forget that what the majority of Germans voted into power in
the 1930s was the National SOCIALIST German Workers party.
If I believed that Hitler, Stalin and the Union of SOCIALIST Soviet
Republics were actually and truely representative of socialism, I'd hate it
just as much as you guys do. But I don't believe it and they were very, very
far away from being genuine socialists. They were both reactionary fascists
and this is easy to see when one examines what they actually said and did.
They were socialists in name only. They were socialists only nominally, at
best. Not only did they betray every significant socialist ideal, they quite
literally killed the socialists, the liberals, the intellectuals as well as
racial and religious minorities. They were both rabidly authoritarian,
anti-democratic, anti-pluralistic and pre-modern in their beliefs. For a
more realistic and fair-minded view of socialism I think we have to look at
counties like France, the Netherlands or Canada. Real socialism is
democratic, egalitarian, pluralistic and respects human rights. Just like
our own Constitution, socialism is a product of the Enlightenment. Fascism
is a rejection of those ideals, a reaction against those ideals.
DMB had said:
> I know you don't like the left. You've taken the
> opportunity to attack Al Gore, Noam Chomsky, Karl Marx and the UN here and
> that only shows your affinity with the reactionaries. Nearly every fascist
> and nearly ever fundamentalist shares your view about these figures.
Platt responded:
I'm surprised that you, having correctly lectured Squonk on his use of
specious arguments, would use the old "guilt by association" ploy of
Joe McCarthy fame. I could just as easily say that nearly every
communist and radical Islamist shares your view in calling George Bush
a "weak-minded dolt." Surely we can do better.
DMB says:
Its not a matter of association with anyone, its a matter of what you
yourself are attacking and/or rejecting. More or less, Gore, Chomsky and
Marx represent the democratic ideals of the Enlightenment and you reject
those ideals to the extent that you reject these figures. I mentioned the
fact that people on the extreme right also tend to reject these fiqures for
much the same reasons that you do only as icing on the cake. Your
association with them is just an added bonus. But trying to associate me
with Joe McCarthy is a real case of quilt by association and is a real case
of a specious argument. He and I have no ideological affinity whatsoever.
And as far as I can tell, every serious person thinks President Junior is a
dolt. Everbody except partisan Repulicans thinks he's a light-weight, even
people who like him will admit this.
> Pirsig...
> Communism and socialism, programs for intellectual control over society,
> were confronted by the reactionary forces of fascism, a program for the
> social control of intellect. ... The gigantic power of socialism and
> fascism, which have overwhelmed this century, is explained by a conflict
of
> levels of evolution.
Platt:
Likewise I conclude you are on the wrong side because your MOQ
moral compass is out of whack. What you choose to overlook, due to
your leftist leanings, is the following:
Pirsig:
"What makes the free-enterprise system superior is that the socialists,
reasoning intelligently and objectively, have inadvertently closed the
door to Dynamic Quality in the buying and selling of things. They closed
it because the metaphysical structure of their objectivity never told them
Dynamic Quality exists."
DMB:
No, I don't choose to overlook this idea. I quite agree with it. But what I
do is balance this statement with the many other things that Pirsig said on
the topic. For example, he says most of the time the advocates of captialism
are just defending it for the sake of self-interest, not in a principled
way. And I think its very important to understand that NEITHER side knew
that DQ exists. Both side were and are operating from that exact same
objective metaphysical structure. The socialists inadvertently closed the
door on DQ, but the capitalists INADVETENTLY left it open. They never
figured it out either, but were lucky in leaving that DQ door open.
Pirsig:
"That's what neither the socialists nor the capitalists ever got figured
out. From a static point of view socialism is more moral than capitalism.
Its a higher form of evolution. It is an intellecually guided society, not
just a society that is guided by mindless traditions. That's what gives
socialism its drive. But what the socialists left out and what has all but
killed the whole undertaking is an absence of a concept of indefinite DQ."
P220
Platt:
Quite bluntly, Pirsig says capitalistic free enterprise is superior to
socialism. To deny that is simply and utterly wrong.
DMB:
Right. In terms of DQ, free enterprize is better. But this idea has to be
balanced with the levels of static quality, where socialism is morally
superior.
Pirsig:
"It's not that Victorian social economic patterns are more moral than
socialist intellectual economic patterns. Quite the opposite. They are LESS
moral as static patterns go." P221
DMB:
And when we give roughly equal weight to ALL the statements Pirsig made on
the topic its easy to see that the best ecomonic system would be a kind of
socialism that does NOT close the door on DQ. That system would be superior
in terms of both intellectual static quality and in terms of Dynamic
Quality. And if we understand socialism properly, not that nightmareish
murderous nominal form that Hitler and STalin demonstrated, but the kind of
genuine socialism that is a product of the Enlightenment and not a rejection
of the Enlightenment, then its pretty easy to see that free-enterprise and
socialist ideals are not contradictory. They are actually quite compatible
and can serve those ideals well. I know this defies conventional wisdom, but
that's only because conventional wisdom on these matters is total shit.
Don't buy it.
See, the thing is that we're all really after the same things. I'm rabidly
anti-authoritarian too. That's the real reason you both tend to reject the
left, but authoritarians who called themselves socialists, did so only for
the sake of gaining more authority. Real socialism rejects authoritarianism
every bit as much as you do. And when you see it that way, you'll find that
you don't need to disagree with Pirsig at all on this. Or with me.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:25 BST