I am a Marxist, and I approve of this anarchist message.
The sooner postmodernism is a historical curiosity the better, as far as I am concerned. Moral relativism. Pah! They called it ethical relativism back in the 70s, but it's the same convenient, rationalizing nonsense with no moral or scientific compass. OTOH, it's great for justifying the actions or inactions of capitalists.
its lawyerism. thats all postmodernism really is. It's all about coming up for reasons for things - jusifying what you want to justify. Maybe that's why they've gone so hard on the whole idea of tolerance. Maybe it's because they want us to tolerate evildoing, because eviidoing is big business. Maybe they want us to tolerate things we shouldn't accept. At the end of the day, I'm a pretty "live and let live" person, and I don't care that much what other people are doing unless it affects me in some way. I also agree with the Taoists that the more laws a society has, the stupider and more immoral members of that society will be.
Think about it. The less rules there are, the more people have to think about what constitutes right action. Really, I think that the epidemic of social-media induced anxiety orders tells us something about ourselves, namely how geared our brains are to caring what other people think about us!
Really, the desire to be approved of by one's peers is one of the most fundamental psychological drives that human beings have. There is clearly an evolutionary purpose to this concern - as pack animals, our survival is bound up with the group that we are a part of. For most people in a Stone Age society, banishment would have meant death, and the fear of banishment lurks in the deepest dark of the psyche.
This is something that surprises me - how people miss how naturally-calibrated towards cooperation human beings naturally are. In emergencies, people fall very easily into effortless teamwork, because people temporarily stop listening to their ego and just do what makes sense. Perhaps it is because I have played a lot of team sports that I see things this way. I think the human capacity for teamwork is extraordinary. I just think the game is really rigged against us.
Really, I think there is such a thing as a social contract. If the people are basically content with the way things are, they consent to be ruled in the sense they don't revolt.
I've heard it said that you deserve what you put up with, and that's what I think the social contract is, in a practical sense.
That was a weird ramble.
I'm surprised that a Marxist approves of my anti-Marxist message! Do you feel I did the Marxist three questions justice?
I'm a Marxist in the sense that I believe people who do the producing should have the power to decide how the producing is done and over how the results of it are used, and because I'm a historical materialist and Marx's critique of capitalism has been proven correct innumerable times.
I have a BA in history and political science, with a minor in philosophy. I went to college in Texas in the 70s, when postmodernism was in the process of becoming the academic norm and tuition & fees were $6/semester hour. Even then, I could see how easily it could be used to defend the status quo, and had in fact been created by people with a vested interest in doing just that. My refusal to sign on is why I don't have an advanced degree.
I understand the need for a class revolution and for the organization necessary to make that happen, or at least to take advantage of the situation when the oligarchy inevitably screws the pooch and provides the main chance. I split from many Marxists after that because, like the Kronstadt Sailors, I understand that power in the hands of a few in the name of the workers is just as authoritarian, and sometimes more so, as power in the name of a hereditary aristocracy.
Individual wants, needs, and characters ARE important simply because they are part of our common humanity. As Emma Goldman told Zinoviev(I think it was Zinoviev), "If I can't dance, then to hell with your Revolution!"
It is up to us who are here and now, in 21st Century America, to decide how we move forward, not to dead Russians who lived in a very different material reality than the one we find ourselves in now.
As an aside, things like bestiality are the best argument for the old human custom of the taboo. Taboos aren't just made up, they come about for good reason. Saying all taboos are bad and should be jettisoned is just silly nonsense designed to get us to hate our neighbors instead of the people whose policies are wrecking our lives.
The question of bestiality is interesting from a legal perspective because it raises the question of what the purpose of a state should be.
According to conservatives, states should limit themselves to providing security, enforcing contracts, and protecting private property.
As Thoreau famously said, "the state which governs best governs least" and that better yet would be a state which governed "not at all".
If a dude was fucking a sheep in his backyard, and his neighbours reported him to the cops, what should the cop do? Is this related to private property? A contract? Security? No? Then why should the state be involved?
It also makes me wonder - how much would I want to live next door to a dude who was fucking a sheep? Not much! I gotta admit - I'd probably move. So does that make it my business then? When it comes to "live and let live", where do you draw the line?
Oh man, I just realized that this would be hilarious way to debate a Jordan Peterson type. First get them to agree that the role of the state should be limited and then accuse him of being a crypto-zoophile. Man, that would be fun.
I guess I do have a serious point to make here, though, which is that states inevitably experience mission drift. The tendency will be for the state to expand into more and more areas, and for people to become increasingly dependent upon it.
In the end, the state becomes the de facto arbiter of justice, and in times where there is enough to go around, people accept its rules. Over time, however, states become less efficient because there's a huge number of bureaucrats looking to get their cut of government budgets.
Taxes and laws proliferate. A Taoist sage said that dying civilizations accumulate useless laws like an old dog accumulates fleas. The important thing to realize is that the state cannot be an arbiter of justice when it is controlled by evil people.
People tend to take it for granted also that healthcare or education wouldn't exist without the state. Of course they would! People would self-organize such things according to what made sense to them. Apparently this is one of those things that you either get or you don't - that humans beings have the same innate ability to work together as wolves do, or as crows do, or as schools of fish do.
I am a Marxist, and I approve of this anarchist message.
The sooner postmodernism is a historical curiosity the better, as far as I am concerned. Moral relativism. Pah! They called it ethical relativism back in the 70s, but it's the same convenient, rationalizing nonsense with no moral or scientific compass. OTOH, it's great for justifying the actions or inactions of capitalists.
its lawyerism. thats all postmodernism really is. It's all about coming up for reasons for things - jusifying what you want to justify. Maybe that's why they've gone so hard on the whole idea of tolerance. Maybe it's because they want us to tolerate evildoing, because eviidoing is big business. Maybe they want us to tolerate things we shouldn't accept. At the end of the day, I'm a pretty "live and let live" person, and I don't care that much what other people are doing unless it affects me in some way. I also agree with the Taoists that the more laws a society has, the stupider and more immoral members of that society will be.
Think about it. The less rules there are, the more people have to think about what constitutes right action. Really, I think that the epidemic of social-media induced anxiety orders tells us something about ourselves, namely how geared our brains are to caring what other people think about us!
Really, the desire to be approved of by one's peers is one of the most fundamental psychological drives that human beings have. There is clearly an evolutionary purpose to this concern - as pack animals, our survival is bound up with the group that we are a part of. For most people in a Stone Age society, banishment would have meant death, and the fear of banishment lurks in the deepest dark of the psyche.
This is something that surprises me - how people miss how naturally-calibrated towards cooperation human beings naturally are. In emergencies, people fall very easily into effortless teamwork, because people temporarily stop listening to their ego and just do what makes sense. Perhaps it is because I have played a lot of team sports that I see things this way. I think the human capacity for teamwork is extraordinary. I just think the game is really rigged against us.
Really, I think there is such a thing as a social contract. If the people are basically content with the way things are, they consent to be ruled in the sense they don't revolt.
I've heard it said that you deserve what you put up with, and that's what I think the social contract is, in a practical sense.
That was a weird ramble.
I'm surprised that a Marxist approves of my anti-Marxist message! Do you feel I did the Marxist three questions justice?
I'm a Marxist in the sense that I believe people who do the producing should have the power to decide how the producing is done and over how the results of it are used, and because I'm a historical materialist and Marx's critique of capitalism has been proven correct innumerable times.
I have a BA in history and political science, with a minor in philosophy. I went to college in Texas in the 70s, when postmodernism was in the process of becoming the academic norm and tuition & fees were $6/semester hour. Even then, I could see how easily it could be used to defend the status quo, and had in fact been created by people with a vested interest in doing just that. My refusal to sign on is why I don't have an advanced degree.
I understand the need for a class revolution and for the organization necessary to make that happen, or at least to take advantage of the situation when the oligarchy inevitably screws the pooch and provides the main chance. I split from many Marxists after that because, like the Kronstadt Sailors, I understand that power in the hands of a few in the name of the workers is just as authoritarian, and sometimes more so, as power in the name of a hereditary aristocracy.
Individual wants, needs, and characters ARE important simply because they are part of our common humanity. As Emma Goldman told Zinoviev(I think it was Zinoviev), "If I can't dance, then to hell with your Revolution!"
It is up to us who are here and now, in 21st Century America, to decide how we move forward, not to dead Russians who lived in a very different material reality than the one we find ourselves in now.
As an aside, things like bestiality are the best argument for the old human custom of the taboo. Taboos aren't just made up, they come about for good reason. Saying all taboos are bad and should be jettisoned is just silly nonsense designed to get us to hate our neighbors instead of the people whose policies are wrecking our lives.
The question of bestiality is interesting from a legal perspective because it raises the question of what the purpose of a state should be.
According to conservatives, states should limit themselves to providing security, enforcing contracts, and protecting private property.
As Thoreau famously said, "the state which governs best governs least" and that better yet would be a state which governed "not at all".
If a dude was fucking a sheep in his backyard, and his neighbours reported him to the cops, what should the cop do? Is this related to private property? A contract? Security? No? Then why should the state be involved?
It also makes me wonder - how much would I want to live next door to a dude who was fucking a sheep? Not much! I gotta admit - I'd probably move. So does that make it my business then? When it comes to "live and let live", where do you draw the line?
Oh man, I just realized that this would be hilarious way to debate a Jordan Peterson type. First get them to agree that the role of the state should be limited and then accuse him of being a crypto-zoophile. Man, that would be fun.
I guess I do have a serious point to make here, though, which is that states inevitably experience mission drift. The tendency will be for the state to expand into more and more areas, and for people to become increasingly dependent upon it.
In the end, the state becomes the de facto arbiter of justice, and in times where there is enough to go around, people accept its rules. Over time, however, states become less efficient because there's a huge number of bureaucrats looking to get their cut of government budgets.
Taxes and laws proliferate. A Taoist sage said that dying civilizations accumulate useless laws like an old dog accumulates fleas. The important thing to realize is that the state cannot be an arbiter of justice when it is controlled by evil people.
People tend to take it for granted also that healthcare or education wouldn't exist without the state. Of course they would! People would self-organize such things according to what made sense to them. Apparently this is one of those things that you either get or you don't - that humans beings have the same innate ability to work together as wolves do, or as crows do, or as schools of fish do.