To DMB and Platt,
DMB:
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.
ROG:
Actually I got it from just finishing some studies of Babeuf, Engels, Marx
and Lenin. They kinda came up with the idea. Please let me know specifically
which part of my very specific summary of their idea "needs emptying" and I
will gladly comply.
DMB:
Not only did they [fascists] betray every significant socialist ideal, they
quite
literally killed the socialists, the liberals, the intellectuals as well as
racial and religious minorities.
ROG:
Marx advocated "annihilating" such "reactionary races " as "Croats, Pandurs,
Czechs and similar scum." Lenin and Stalin and Mao killed a hell of a lot
more socialists within their own countries than did Hitler or Mussolini in
their struggles for the pinnacle of socialist authoritarianism.
DMB:
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.
ROG:
Where do you make this stuff up at? In exactly what part of violent,
revolutionary class struggle do we find democracy? In what part of seizing
political power to expropriate property and create a "dictatorship of the
proletariat" do we find this fair minded pluralism?
I do agree that socialism was a product of the Enlightenment specifically
that ultimate cluster f@#k called the French Revolution. But, so was fascism.
The original fascists were French and the term fascio means "bundle" as in
people tightly bonded that "was a symbol adopted by the French Revolution"
according to J. Muravchik, one time leader of the Young People's Socialist
league.
Fascism and socialism were competing variations on a common theme of getting
the people to support a new power center. As I stated in my post, many of
their ideals were exactly the same. Of course, some weren't, as I also
stated. Mussolini definitely jumped back and forth between both factions.
You are correct that socialism eventually adopted a democratic flair as
popularized in Great Britain, France and other places after WWII. You choose
to call this the real socialism, but you supply no argument to support your
case.
DMB:
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.
ROG:
Obviously they couldn't anticipate a term penned 150 to 200 years later. The
point is that Adam Smith's ideas embraced distributed creativity and
responsiveness and Marx embraced a one time dynamic revolution. And could
you please let me know how Marx embraced the enlightenment? The only quote I
could find was that he raged against its "modern mythology with its godesses
of Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity."
DMB:
...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.
ROG:
I believe my prior post gave evidence to the contrary of this latter point.
Comments? I think Mr Smith's theories were significantly better from
virtually any intellectual measure than Dr Marx's. I could go into detail if
you are interested.
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.
ROG:
I am fine with you selectively adopting a limited set of socialist-based
sympathies and values and overlaying some of these over democracy and
capitalism. Certainly all successful and modern nations have done various
versions of this. I would argue that this is what is out there today, whether
conventional wisdom or shit or whatever.
Rog
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