"Oleg Smirnov" <***@netc.eu> wrote on Mon 25 Mar 2024 11:27:37p:
Hope the spelling-checker didn't do too bad a job while correcting the
no-doubt many typos etc. :-)
Post by Oleg SmirnovPost by KPGHI've read marx and lenin etc. only superficially. But the main
problem seemed that they went a step further than the US declaration
of independence that stated: "We hold these Truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their creator with certain unalienable rights..." Apparently,
these gentleman essentially claimed that they had proof that all men
are created equal. And furthermore, that they were the proprietors of
the unalienable rights of all men.
From there, they seemed to have claimed that they did not only have a
right to enforce 'the unalienable rights' of 'all men', but also a
duty to do so.
And unlike the french (that went wrong almost immediately) and the US
revolutions, the principle of 'audi alteram partem' (to at least
consider an opposite argument) could under this narrative apparently
be dispensed with completely, because it deemed 'scientifically
proven' that opposition to the marxist project emanated from either
stupidity of malignity.
Sense of protest against enforced or inheritable inequality seems
common for all [true] socialist varieties. Modern right-wingers,
especially those in N.America, tend to call "Marxist" everything
of social justice flavor. It indicates their passion to attribute
what they dislike to a brand historically proven to be 'demonic'.
The original Marxist doctrine specifically operates in terms of
social classes where the classes are seen essentially as a kind of
tribes, with their particular tribal morals and particular tribal
interest, and one Proletariat class is endowed with a special
mission to be the main driver for progressive social development
(where the Judaic concept of a special tribe destined for a
special mission might be suspected to have been a template).
The 'concept of a special tribe destined' is probably just one of many
expressions of historicism which pertains to all sorts of either
existing or aspirational exclusive groupings with claims' on others.
Usually on the basis of some doctrine or 'declared truth' that cannot be
disproved. Karl popper in his 'The Open Society and its Enemies':
"Historicism, which I have so far characterized only in a rather
abstract way, can be well illustrated by one of the simplest and oldest
of its forms, the doctrine of the chosen people. This doctrine is one of
the attempts to make history understandable by a theistic
interpretation, i.e. by recognizing God as the author of the play
performed on the Historical Stage. The theory of the chosen people, more
specifically, assumes that God has chosen one people to function as the
selected instrument of His will, and that this people will inherit the
earth.
In this doctrine, the law of historical development is laid down by the
Will of God. This is the specific difference which distinguishes the
theistic form from other forms of historicism. A naturalistic
historicism, for instance, might treat the developmental law as a law of
nature; a spiritual historicism would treat it as a law of spiritual
development; an economic historicism, again, as a law of economic
development. Theistic historicism shares with these other forms the
doctrine that there are specific historical laws which can be
discovered, and upon which predictions regarding the future of mankind
can be based.
There is no doubt that the doctrine of the chosen people grew out of the
tribal form of social life. Tribalism, i.e. the emphasis on the supreme
importance of the tribe without which the individual is nothing at all,
is an element which we shall find in many forms of historicist theories.
Other forms which are no longer tribalist may still retain an element of
collectivism1; they may still emphasize the significance of some group
or collective-for example, a class - without which the individual is
nothing at all. Another aspect of the doctrine of the chosen people is
the remoteness of what it proffers as the end of history. For although
it may describe this end with some degree of definiteness, we have to go
a long way before we reach it. And the way is not only long, but
winding, leading up and down, right and left. Accordingly, it will be
possible to bring every conceivable historical event well within the
scheme of the interpretation. No conceivable experience can refute
it..."
I guess every state has within its establishment competing interests
representing broader societal groupings with competing narratives and
claims. Viable modern states themselves seem to have to some extent an
inevitable 'tribal character', in that they effort citizens more
benefits than non-citizens -- obviously in exchange for a degree of
conformity to keep the state viable.
At the core the main difference between modern states seems not whether
or not they qualify for being labeled 'a democracy' or whatever, but how
they define 'citizens' -- or in backward states still 'subjects'.
'Citizens' can primarily be defined on the basis of either who the
members of a population actually are, or on what they (outside of
inherited citizenship) should be on the basis of real or imaginary
inherited qualifications that cannot be changed easily or at all.
To the extend that the later is the case, popper's definition of the
doctrine of the doctrine of the chosen people seems to creep in with at
the extreme end the intent to destroy (rather than exploit or expel if
possible) the 'non-chosen people'.
With regard to WW2, the only non-polemical reasonable critic of the
'Nuremberg narrative' I know of, was 'The Origins of the Second World
War' of A J P Taylor (1960s). Apparently it met with such a barrage of
acquisitions with regard to whitewashing NS-ideology, that from than
most serious authors and academics stayed away from critical reviews on
the subject.
Public anger everywhere over the conduct of WW1 needed to be either
dissipated or directed away from regimes. So it was given a special
significance as the 'War to end War'' and all that. Afterwards the loser
was made solely responsible for the war, was expected to pay enormous
reparations and give up territory the 'indigenous inhabitants' often
became second class citizens under a new (to them foreign) regime.
For a new German regime to exploit all that against the pressure of the
victors of WW1, I supposes it needed beyond the support of a large part
of the impoverished classes the support of substantial parts of both
the German gentry and middle-classes.
And the way to obtain that support, was probably to deflect public anger
away from both the 'class struggle' and the role of the national elite
during the war, by propagandistically define and isolate 'non-german'
and made them responsible for 'everything'.
An apparently exceptional homicidal tendency of the regime might have
had it origins not in some sort of outrages ideology, but in a
combination of political opportunism and corruption paired with a type
of nihilism that germinated in the trenches of WW1 where soldiers that
failed 'to go over the top' or tried to return to their trenches without
orders after an obviously failed attack, were allegedly routinely shot
by 'friendly' barrier troops.
If that could be justified, then why not expel or otherwise 'dispose of'
whoever for whatever reason was not deemed useful to a national project
that tried to reverse the calamity that WW1 was for the german
population not only during but long after the war had ended?
Opportunistic killings of handicapped German citizens themselves
including children apparently started around 1940, and was only stopped
after the public intervention of a bishop that took great personal risk
in doing so. (Von Gaalen or something.)
Post by Oleg SmirnovThe Proletariat and the Communist Party (as a political force in
the name of the Proletariat) were seen in such a way that there's
certain basic, main, pure class (supra-national) interest of the
Proletariat and certain insuperable logic of social development,
and it's all correctly understood and commonly recognized by the
Communists, whereas various national / particular pro-workers
political movements focused on more narrow goals were seen either
as some whose agenda is not truly pro-working-class or as
[intellectually] minor fellows who don't grasp The Big Pictire.
The latter may be seen as a messianist-paternalist attitude, but
at the time, in the mid-19 century, it was more like "intellectual
paternalism", because then Communists didn't have a leverage to
coerce anyone, they could only rely on promotion of the Communist
doctrine among pro-social-justice thinkers and oppressed masses.
The narrative of "scientific character" of the Marxism seemed to
have taken shape later, as an argument against pro-workers parties
pursuing more immediate and tangible, less fundamentalist goals.
Don't know details but feel it's probably more that marx c.s. largely
correctly identified major faults in dominant ('free market') economic
theory of his day and (much like mercantilism before it) the corruption
that it resulted in.
They were however I think obviously not able to identify the mechanisms
that resulted in a failure of an unregulated 'free market' (which took
until after Keynes and WW2 Nash etc), and so apparently filled to void
by combining (on the basis of observation) 'what is' and (on the basis
of preferences) 'what should be'. And proceeded from there to declared
the whole packages to be the one and only 'truth'? :-)
Thus I suppose it was probably Lenin c.s. that gave marxism direction
as political force with the bolshevik movement that in essences
introduced a kind of hybrid class of (military style) officers and
religious leadership that interpreted 'marxist theory' 'correctly' and
made it doctrine.
A somewhat similar movement (which seems rampant in Europe) may exits
today in the US in the form of (part of) the constitutionalist movement
that seems to trie to obscure the fundamental conflict between negative
and positive rights -- such as between the 'right' of the
(Machiavellian) 'haves' to not be interfered with in the enjoyment of
property, and the 'right' of the 'have-nots' to have access to a minimum
amount of property necessary to sustain life and a degree of equal
opportunity with regard to social advancement for all citizens.
They seem essentially try to do this by turning constitutional judges
(that give opinions based reason by weighting arguments) into a kind of
priests that produce proclamations regarding the meaning of the
constitution. Such proclamations then no longer need explanations or
justifications, but are instead often accompanied by some narrative to
sell it to the public.
Post by Oleg SmirnovAs to the "audi alteram partem", the idea that the Proletariat as
a social class is in tribal-like antagonistic-irreducible conflict
with the exploitative classes (primarily the bourgeoisie), meant
that a discussion with those who represent interests of the
exploitative classes makes little sense (but the Dictatorship of
Proletariat makes sense instead). However, discussion among (pro-)
Communist thinkers was supposed to be in a democratic-like manner.
But they did not seem to have any reflection on the possibility
that within the Communist community itself, there can arise misc
and competing approaches and proposals, as well as rival factions,
and how, in this case, the issues should have been resolved.
Don't no details, but suspect that 'dictatorship of proletariat' was a
polemic pointing out that workers (that is, those who only have their
labor to sell) represented the majority of the people, so rule 'in their
interest' was by definition 'democratic' i.e. a form of 'majority rule'.
I suspect it was partly directed against a competing narratives based on
an 'antagonistic-irreducible conflict' that seems to have been a
primarily European social-democratic project: Somehow it seemed amazing
that 'labour-parties' (not to be confused with 'labour unions') that
apparently purported 'to keep labourers labouring' forever by
playing-off social classes against each other and so discourages social
advancement, represented the interests of labourers most of whom
probably hoped for a better station for themself and their offspring.
Amazement could even turn into disbelieve, when it turns out that many
within leaderships of such 'labour-parties' never 'laboured' a day in
their lives, and never had a need to do so from the day they were born?
:-)
Post by Oleg SmirnovIn other words, the Communist movement was seen as a brotherhood
where the members share camaraderie towards each other, understand
common goal and are capable to properly elaborate what is right
and what is wrong through exchange of considerations in a rational
way. But when an opportunity for practice occurred, this model of
rational camaraderie didn't last long. Besides the fact that the
revolutionary violence against enemy classes turned out highly
traumatic for the whole society, it soon became so that losers in
intraspecific disputes within the Communist Party were labeled to
be vile enemy agents and the like (because there can't be a fight
among true comrades-brothers). This way ruling Communist parties
degraded into quasi-monarchical "leaderism" (much archaic model of
social management) with a progressive-innovative agenda.
Subsequent later developments were marked by retreats from the
"leaderist" extremes (except N. Korea) but there were also various
other revealed issues. The Marxist-Leninist approach turned out
hapless with regard to agricultural domain. Then, even the true
proletarians, as their standards of living improved, began to show
certain tendency towards 'petty-bourgeois' settings. "Proletarian
internationalism" (supra-national solidarity of the working class)
turned out to be not really as strong as founders of the Communism
were inclined to believe. Thanks to the European fascims, in
particular, and, later, the Sino-Soviet squabble also noticeably
contributed. Also, original Marxist progressive ideas about social
expediency of destruction of "bourgeois family", alienation of
children from their parents for the purpose of their proper social
education and other stuff of the sort began to increasingly look
like a controversial / freaky radicalism. And some more.
Controversy regarding the interference of the state in parental control
I think goes back to at least Plato. I understand almost all modern
states enforce some form of compulsory education (indoctrination) that
oftentimes affect mostly the lower social classes because elites usually
have options.
What this 'bourgeois business' was about I don't know. Apparently it was
not the same as the industrial middle-class that started to appear in
conjunction with the industrial revolution.
Wasn't it primarily a polemic with regard to what I think marx referred
to as 'Lumpenproletariat'?That is, machiavellian 'have-nots' that
justified acting against the interests of the social-economic (lower)
class that they actually belonged to, by pretended to belong to elites?
Post by Oleg SmirnovPost by KPGHI think in the US even after WW2 [there] were always pockets of
[ingrained] poverty. The reason is probably that these are regarded
an unavoidable by-product of a viable liberal system. However, I
understand that over most of its history, the distribution of wealth
and status in the US was more equal than in Europe.
It seems that societies dealing with 'something new' (which also
may imply lesser safety in their way of life) naturally tend to
be more egalitarian, while societies relying more on established
tradition tend to be more hierarchical (because tradition helps
preserve status).
And then, there was general trend within modern history towards
increasing popular demand for egalitarism (caused by development
of communications, when the common discourse began to cover more
numerous groups). The trend had become especially pronounced in
19th century when regular daily/weekly press became increasingly
available to regular people. America was better 'ready' for such
'new times', which seemed to contribute to the fact that its
boldness was noticed since the mid-19th century and then rised
throughout the 20th century (whereas the zeal to dispute over
established beliefs on inherent hierarchies/statuses led the Old
World's powers to the self-destructive WW1-WW2 period).
Before the industrial revolution working classes were probably to
occupied with surviving day to day, and had no time for demanding
egalitarianism as that could endanger their 'temporal existence' even
more. Within the 'noble classes' that were 'on their honor' to keep the
nobles noble, there was probably a little room for demanding equality if
very carefully formulated within the scope of milking the plebs more
efficiently and (especially) avoiding rebellion.
I suspect it was probably primarily the industrial revolution that
required a more complex division of labor and management-structures
resulting in the advent of a middle class that became in a position to
make demands with regard to the nobles, and the increased role of
firearms in combat that increased the bonus of having a larger army
(than an opponent) in the field that resulted in the requirement of
'citizen' (to recruit from) that could ten make demands in exchange for
their service, that egalitarianism became an issue. :-)
Post by Oleg SmirnovPost by KPGHPost by Oleg SmirnovIt seems that one of the
traditional leftist flaws is a tendency to idealize regular people,
"masses". Or it may be not a bug but a feature, as some idealization
enables more righteous rhetoric, more catchy slogans and thus allows
to attracts more masses.
Don't think that paternalist ('left wing') elites idealize anything.
To justify withholding wealth from the populous at large and
accumulate it under the control of some elite, it's necessary to to
come up with some sort of justification.
I meant it so that idealization may be delusional or intentional,
it's still remains idealization, which means exaggeration of nice
features and downplaying of ugly features, and you seem to take
idealization mainly as sincere or delusional idealization (honest
misconception).
For leftist narratives it's somewhat tipical to attribute social
vices primarily to privileged-exploitative strata / classes while
in real life, vices / baser instincts exist in pretty all strata.
It doesn't mean that social injustices must be tolerated as
something God-given that can't be somehow changed. But one should
try to be less idealistic when constructing an image of the ideal
society ("the road to hell is paved with good intentions").
And, indeed, the paternalist thinkers tend to adopt family-like
"harmonious collectivism" as sort of ideal (downplaying the fact
that conflicts and competitions are seen everywhere for living
things in general and humans in particular), what also implicitly
or explicitly assumes there is some ruling elite whose (God-given
or "scientifically proven") Mission is to maintain / preserve the
harmony over these unwise little/minor ones.
However, downplaying competition (backed by ideas of brotherhood
or collectivism and the like) seems to turn out worse than an
institutionalized competition. Because there's no way to actually
eliminate competition / conflicts from the society. Even if it's
not institutionalized, it would be going on anyway, outside of a
recognized framework ("without rules", "under the carpet"), and
in this way it would rather take more ugly and destructive forms.
Post by KPGHAnd the resulting narrative usually pertains
in large part to 'securing a better future' and maintaining 'social
justice'.
But to make a narrative like that fly, it becomes necessary to paint
a rather rosy picture of human nature. Otherwise to many people could
start asking when 'a better future' comes exactly, who exactly is
benefiting from the accumulated wealth 'in the meantime'. And, 'in
the meantime', the people would not be better of with a greater part
of their part of the supposedly 'common wealth' under their own
control.
Religion has solved this issue in a fundamental way. What
is your life is not a real life, but only a preparation for
true real life. And the true real life will be bodiless, so
any suffering or losses your body might experience in this
preliminary life doesn't matter much, just take it easy ;)
That's probably what was implied in the quote of Macbeth (shakespeare):
On the one hand the perception of life is presented around the notion
that whatever seems important to an individual now, will not matter at
all in a hundred years. And so it's best not to bother with the
inconveniences associated with life and try to improve them by resisting
'the powers that be'.
Or on other hand, life is presented as part of a much longer journey
with some 'higher purpose' not directly known to the individual but
indirectly transmitted to him by means of 'a deeper meaning' know only
to an elite.
The first (egoistic) version seems more useful in times that an
exploited population must just be kept quiet and except its fate.
The later (altruistic) version seems more dangers to 'the powers that
be' as it potentially energizes a population to fight and die in the
context of some 'greater endeavor'. If at that point a corrupt elite
looses control over the narrative, thinks could turn a little-bit hairy?
Maybe that's (in some ways like 100 years ago) what's going on in the
west right now with all the BS about 'the extreme right' and 'extreme
left' both of which have (of course) no relation at all with the
corruption of 'the middle'?
Post by Oleg SmirnovPost by KPGHTomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, Creeps in this petty pace from
day to day to the last syllable of recorded time. And all our
yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death.
Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no
more. It is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury --
Signifying nothing.... :-)