DMB, Roger, John B., Jonathan, All:
> Platt asked:
> I wonder if David and other socialists on this site will be good enough
> tell us what part or parts of the Communist Manifesto they oppose.
>
> DMB says:
> No. Sorry. I just can't be that good. Its too boring. I haven't read the
> Communist Manifesto in twenty years and I'll be perfectly happy if I never
> read it again. I'm not here to defend that antiquated tract and I'm NOT a
> Marxists. I'm not here to defend the murderous, reactionary thugs who
> incincerely claimed the name of socialism. The point is all about looking
> at socialism as Pirsig defines it, as a "program for the intellectual
> control of society". For the millionth time, its all about making a
> distinction between 3rd and 4th level values.
If you are going to quote Pirsig, you might try doing it accurately.
"Communism and socialism, programs for intellectual control over
society . . ." As blueprints for intellectual control over society there isn't
a dime's worth of difference between the Communist Manifesto and the
Principles of International Socialism. When it comes to demeaning
"antiquated tracts," I hope you don't feel the same way about the 200
plus year old U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
> Platt asked:
> David, perhaps you'll explain the economic system you envision that
> combines socialism but doesn't close the door on DQ. Is there a model out
> there somewhere? Do you want the U.S. to become like Canada?
>
> Economics is just one of the many important aspects. At the heart of
> thingss its not about money so much as it is about evolution and the stages
> or levels of moral development. Pirsig isn't the only one. I've found this
> same idea in lots of places, including Wilber's work. This is just one of
> the many areas where Pirsig and Wilber agree. Maybe it'll help to read the
> same idea in different terms. I found the following at
> http://www.worldofkenwilber.com under the "Integral Politics" link. This
> was written by Frank Visser, a Dutch man who's written a book about Ken
> Wilber.
>
> "To this familiar division of Left and Right, Wilber adds the idea of
> DEVELOPMENT. (Visser's emphasis) The Conservative Republicans represent his
> mythic-membership stage of human development, in which one's relationship
> to common religious values is central. The liberal Democrats represent a
> higher stage of development: the rational-egoic stage, which stresses
> independent thinking and freedom (and, unfortunately, also
> materialism)...."
Well, pin a rose of me. We've already seen on this site the "higher
stage of development" trophy that socialists, liberals, Democrats and
other leftist types love to present to themselves while thumping their
chests with arrogant displays of moral superiority. John Beasley is
prone to the same impulse that claims if you don't agree with the his
agenda for a better world, you are less evolved than a Neanderthal.
Jonathan put what I'm saying more tactfully when he wrote, "Dave, I
came down on you previously for phrasing many of your arguments
thus: "My position is intellectual, yours is social, therefore the MoQ
says I win. . . ' I find that approach self-defeating." So do I.
> "The ideal combination of left Wing and Right Wing element would include
> both the centrality of spiritual values (no longer constrained by mythical
> religion, but inspired by mystical spirituality) and the acknowledgement of
> the process of human development. It can be characterized as a mystical
> humanism, a mystical marxism or a liberal mysticism."
>
> This is what I'm getting at. This mystical liberalism or mystical marxism
> is just another to describe an intellectual level political ideology that
> that opens the door to DQ.
Mystical marxism. No there's stirring vision. Rasputin for Czar!
> See? No, I suppose you don't see. Trying to get this point across has the
> source of a great deal of frustration for months, yet I feel compelled to
> keep trying. The odds are long. One can only hope.
Pirsig:"The Metaphysics of Quality says the free market makes
everybody richer by preventing static economic patterns from setting in
and stagnating economic growth. That is the reason the major
capitalistic economies of the world have done so much better since
World War II that the major socialist economies."
See? No I suppose you don't see. Economics is at the heart of of the
socialism vs. capitalism comparison. It is about money, in other words,
about wretched poverty vs. hopeful prosperity. Most of all, it's about
Dynamic freedom from the static patterns that, Pirsig says, is what
socialism offers.
If you can describe or point to a model of socialism with a door left open
for DQ (other than the mixed economy of the U.S. today), I'm all ears.
We may just disagree on how wide the door should be left open.
Platt
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