From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Thu Oct 13 2005 - 18:26:44 BST
At 11:13 AM 10/13/2005, you wrote:
> > [Arlo]
> > I use "conservative" and "liberal" when I am in dialogue with Platt. He's
> > made it clear those are his poles, and he's stickin' to 'em. I tried using
> > scarequotes with them, to show I was using them in a discordant manner.
> >
> > But I think its important to note that its not that I don't "get" a
> > "leftist" and "rightist" political meter, its the absolute dichotomization
> > of "All Good" and "All Evil" that these labels, and those that employ them,
> > bring.
>
>Apparently Arlo doesn't see that his anti-dichotomy stance creates an
>equally severe dichotomy -- those in favor and those against dichotomies.
>Equally, his condemnation of party lines is itself a party line -- those
>who like to refer to themselves as independents.
Bizarre logic, Platt.
> >My point is that
> > the political dialogue is, and *should be* much broader than this simple
> > dichotomy, and people need to realize that maybe (as Khaled eloquently
> > points out) "both" parties are right (or conversely, both parties may be
> > wrong), and to stop this innane "my party all good, yours all evil" idiocy.
>
>Although in Arlo's mind, his independent Marxist "party" is good, while
>the conservative and liberal parties are evil.
What deceptive and disingenuous rhetoric, Platt. You know this is not true,
from the many other times I've answered this and similar charges, and yet
you continue to repeat this. Why?
> > I don't think you need to be "apolitical", Erin. I think a good solution is
> > to use the right-left meter to apply to beliefs, not to people. And to find
> > a way to look across the spectrum for solutions, and mix/match/select based
> > on Quality, not on "my team must defeat the evil so-and-so's". And to
> > remember that on the big Left-Right meter, todays "liberals" and
> > "conservatives" are both about 1mm apart somewhere just right of center.
>
>On the contrary, the policies espoused by liberals and conservatives are
>miles apart. Social Security reform and education vouchers are just two
>examples.
Hardly. But you keep on shouting this. If these policies are "miles apart"
then the political spectrum must be the size of a galaxy. Not to mention
the many alternatives to party-line reform suggestions. You try to make it
sound like the only two options are the "conservative-all good" approach,
and the "liberal-all evil" approach, but that's more sad than it is laughable.
> > To clarify futher, I'm not saying "I" am suffering attacks from the left
> > and right, I said that both the liberals and conservatives use fear tactics
> > to distract popular dialogue away from examination of the system. This is
> > what I mean, and MSH had argued much earlier, that both conservatives and
> > liberals are really not that different. Both are pawns to wealth and power
> > interests. Both battle each other, but only to secure power for itself, not
> > really to instigate change or solutions. We are swept up in the "go team!"
> > rhetoric and lose sight of the critical dialogue.
>
>Arlo doesn't think he gets "swept up" in rhetoric but is somehow able to
>rise above it all to examine issues "critically." The hidden premise is
>that the rest of us are stupid peons, incapable of attaining his lofty
>"critical" perch.
More deliberate deception, Platt. Methinks you'd make a good politician.
Nowhere, and at no time, have I ever intimated that anyone is a "stupid
peon" or incapable of critical thought. I've lamented from day one that
critical thinking skills are not stressed great enough in the curriculum,
leaving many susceptible to the type of deceptive, manipulative rhetoric of
distraction used by both parties. You reply to me on this point is a prime
example of this: I complain the dialogue is full of distraction, and you
counter charging me with calling everyone stupid. So typical of party
propaganda, and just sad, really.
> > Marx, as I've said, would abhor modern "liberals" as vehemently as he'd
> > abhor modern "conservatives". When Platt calls welfare "Marxist" it is
> > irritatingly funny. Welfare is not a solution to poverty, Marx would say,
> > merely a capitalist inspired band-aid to keep the working class distracted
> > and placated. What Marx would say is "abolish welfare", abolish social
> > security, abolish food stamps, minimum wage, unemployment, workers
> > compensation, mandatory health care for full time employees, work week and
> > age restrictions to labor, and all those programs, and then we'd be very
> > shortly on the road to revolution, when the majority would truly see their
> > place in the world without the social trinkets thrown at their feet by both
> > "liberals" and "conservatives".
>
>Yes, and in the revolution Marx promises to abolish private property. All
>power is granted to the "Giant, unforgettably described by Pirsig:
Except this Giant Pirsig talks about in your quote was not Marxist or
Capitalist, but the nature of social level patterns emerging from (and
devouring) lower level biological patterns. Why do you use in a way to
indicate that this devouring is somehow "Marxist"? I think you know better,
and assume your tactics are, again, deliberately manipulative. Indeed, the
Giant Pirsig describes is New York City!
>Maybe Arlo finds the social patterns of the Giant appealing, but to me
>they mean one thing -- you guessed it -- gulags, as was demonstrated when
>intellect put the Giant's patterns into practice on a grand scale.
Here again you deliberatly misuse Pirsig's sentiment. The Giant of social
patterns Pirsig examplified with New York City, modern capitalist NYC. Not
some Marxist Giant waiting to come and take you to a gulag, but a feature
of the social level that places social-level patterns as higher organisms
than biological patterns. Doesn't matter if your city is in Stalinist
Russia or Reagan America (as Pirsig's example was).
But I hope others got the point about Marx and this idiotic association of
his ideas with modern liberalism. Like I said, he would GLADLY support all
your conservative "progressive" ideas to "abolish welfare", abolish social
security, abolish food stamps, minimum wage, unemployment, workers'
compensation, mandatory health care for full time employees, work week and
age restrictions to labor, and all those programs. He'd say they were
useless band-aids that served to placate and distract.
"Abolish them," Platt, he'd say, "I support you. Let's end them all right
now. And what do you think would happen next?"
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 13 2005 - 18:33:18 BST