A very telling answer from you. — ssu

I don't aim to be obscure, so... thanks!

No it hasn't. — counterpunch

The year 2000 elections with Bush vs Gore going to the courts far too distant in history for you to remember?

You increase fairness by expanding access and opportunity. Redistribution does not work. People have to do it (succeed) themselves in order for it to be sustainable. — synthesis

But noone succeeds all by themselves, do they? They all rely on good parenting, education, opportunity afforded by outside sources.

People can make more or less out of what they're given, but no-one is an island.

that the Invisible Hand at the heart of capitalism is a miracle that affords personal and political freedom — counterpunch

Do you mean a literal miracle, i.e. an act of God? Do you consider the literal hand of God to be involved in the market?

I have to admit I was otherwise engaged in the year 2000, by personal matters. But never before 2016 have I been aware of claims the process was rigged, or a widespread refusal to accept the result. It's difficult to make heads or tails of that photograph, but given Gore/Lieberman lost, I'm guessing they're the one's weeping about counting all the votes. Again, Dems. So...

that the Invisible Hand at the heart of capitalism is a miracle that affords personal and political freedom
— counterpunch

Do you mean a literal miracle, i.e. an act of God? Do you consider the literal hand of God to be involved in the market? — Echarmion

No. I don't suggest there's anything supernatural going on, but it's strange and wonderful how the rationally self interested actions of individuals conspire to produce and distribute the goods and services people want and need without any over-arching authority. Adam Smith described it as an invisible hand. It would be madness of the highest order to dispense with it.

Don't you see any dangers in a sense of superiority? — Jack Cummins

Danger for whom? The superior person?

Of course, I would guess that it does depend on how you understand the idea of superior and my own working definition is of is of being intrinsically better.

Two things:

1. Who gets to be the arbiter of which person is intrinsically better than some other person?

2. Would you say you're intrinsically better than, say, Hitler?

Nevertheless, the point which I feel that you are missing is that a sense of superiority can be a way of putting others down. It may bolster the ego but it is an aspect of power dynamics and I would say that it lies at the heart of oppression.

That is the whole point of superiority. There is no reason to think that a sense of superiority is not evolutionarily advantageous. Life is a struggle for survival, and in that struggle, deeming oneself superior to others is advantageous to one's survival.

Deeming oneself inferior - intrinsically inferior - is a recipe for failure.

I am not advocating a sense of inferiority. I do believe in aiming for one's best and I do not equate superiority with ability My point about the problem of a sense of superiority is more the way in which pride can go wrong and be about power over others. But I do believe in empowerment and certainly not false humility.

What I am talking about is superiority and the dark shadow it casts. I believe that everyone is equal in worth and value. I would argue that this is the basis for opposing oppression which has its roots in people ranking themselves as superior.

After all, the number of white people out there who buy into this self-hatred thing must be waning fast. — synthesis

I never encourage collective guilt feelings or collective self-hatred. It's tedious; it's unproductive; sometimes it is pretentiously faked. Individuals ought to feel guilt for acts they have committed with malice and forethought. I don't feel guilty when white police kill blacks. It might have been just plain murder, and if so the officer should be punished. Or it might have been accidental; inadvertent; not intended. Investigations can sort it out. Consequences should follow.

We can, we should, we must understand how our history unfolded. Not just our personal history; but our national history. From at least a general understanding we should see some large trends that have been at work for a long time. No one should feel guilty about the epidemics which resulted from Columbus's search for a westward route to Asia. No one should feel guilty about British colonialism. No one should feel guilty about slavery. Or the industrial revolution. Or the millions of Native Americans' deaths caused by American westward expansion. We were not there.

I recommend reading about the urban history of the US, not so that people can find more reasons for self hatred or collective guilt, but for an understanding of how it unfolded, how we got to where we are. Once understanding is obtained, one will see how difficult it will be to undo the past.

If an individual is working to harm other people, they have reason to feel guilty, and they should stop doing it. There are plenty of crooks out there, some on street corners, some in elegant office suites.

I believe that everyone is equal in worth and value. — Jack Cummins

What is this belief based on?
Certainly not facts.

I would argue that this is the basis for opposing oppression which has its roots in people ranking themselves as superior.

Then what about the evolutionary struggle for survival? Do you just dismiss it?

You increase fairness by expanding access and opportunity. Redistribution does not work. People have to do it (succeed) themselves in order for it to be sustainable.
— synthesis

But noone succeeds all by themselves, do they? They all rely on good parenting, education, opportunity afforded by outside sources.

People can make more or less out of what they're given, but no-one is an island. — Echarmion

Of course, that's why it soooo important to have a family and community (education) supporting you. The number one predictor of success is successful parents. The black community is amazing so when they do figure out what needs to be done, I believe they will leave the white and Asian folks in the dust.

You must instill the necessity to be focused and work hard in order to succeed, i.e., to have meaningful success (as opposed to being, say, a trust-fund individual). There is a significant percentage of the black community that are already there, so it's just a matter of time before the rest are pulled-up, but it is the black community that will do the pulling.

Adam Smith described it as an invisible hand. It would be madness of the highest order to dispense with it. — counterpunch

And Adam Smith was referring to God. He was a religious person, and it's not exactly subtle.

No. I don't suggest there's anything supernatural going on, but it's strange and wonderful how the rationally self interested actions of individuals conspire to produce and distribute the goods and services people want and need without any over-arching authority. — counterpunch

The thing is, though, that there has always been an over-arching authority since capitalism began. Capitalism developed under historically strong states.

There is a significant percentage of the black community that are already there, so it's just a matter of time before the rest are pulled-up, but it is the black community that will do the pulling. — synthesis

I just wonder why you'd be against helping them? Like we can disagree on the right approach, but certainly there is something that can be done.

After all, the number of white people out there who buy into this self-hatred thing must be waning fast.
— synthesis

I never encourage collective guilt feelings or collective self-hatred. It's tedious; it's unproductive; sometimes it is pretentiously faked. Individuals ought to feel guilt for acts they have committed with malice and forethought. I don't feel guilty when white police kill blacks. It might have been just plain murder, and if so the officer should be punished. Or it might have been accidental; inadvertent; not intended. Investigations can sort it out. Consequences should follow.

We can, we should, we must understand how our history unfolded. Not just our personal history; but our national history. From at least a general understanding we should see some large trends that have been at work for a long time. No one should feel guilty about the epidemics which resulted from Columbus's search for a westward route to Asia. No one should feel guilty about British colonialism. No one should feel guilty about slavery. Or the industrial revolution. Or the millions of Native Americans' deaths caused by American westward expansion. We were not there.

I recommend reading about the urban history of the US, not so that people can find more reasons for self hatred or collective guilt, but for an understanding of how it unfolded, how we got to where we are. Once understanding is obtained, one will see how difficult it will be to undo the past.

If an individual is working to harm other people, they have reason to feel guilty, and they should stop doing it. There are plenty of crooks out there, some on street corners, some in elegant office suites. — Bitter Crank

We've been through all this in this country. People who went to school (when you actually learned something, say, people over 50) know the history. We were all taught and understand. Many of us saw what happened during the civil rights era and get it. And things have changed drastically.

What society decided to do is move on from the past and make a better future. It is only younger people taught by Marxist holdouts in universities that seem to want to go back and dredge all this up again. The past is past. It's time to resume the moving on and making a better future.

Calling people who had nothing to do with what went on over the last four hundred years, racists, is just plain wrong. I believe that the majority of black people agree with this outlook. Should the Germans still be paying for the atrocities of WWII or the Russians, or every other groups that's behaved poorly?

The lesson in life that people must learn is that you ALWAYS keeping moving forward. Attaching to the past is what suffering is.

But never before 2016 have I been aware of claims the process was rigged, or a widespread refusal to accept the result. — counterpunch

I can assure you this has a long tradition in the US.

Here's a short introduction to various elections that have been disputed: A history of contested presidential elections, from Samuel Tilden to Al Gore

And one article after Al Gore (from 2006) about the 2004 elections: Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

What was unique for Trump was that he didn't accept at all the results or that he lost ...until after January 6th.

How terrible insurrectionists would be those violently protesting the events then? — ssu

It seems quite consistent to be in support of some violent insurrections and not in support of others. Neither the violence nor the insurrection parts of it are inherently wrong, it's a matter of how it's done, why it's done, and what're the consequences.

To be clear; if the context was something like a group of extremely pissed off people impoverished during COVID nonlethally disrupting the process that kept blocking their stimulus checks, that's at the very least defensible and understandable. A violent attempt to overturn an election result whose fairness held up to extreme bipartisan scrutiny in that court system is definitely not defensible. What is justified to believe about the situation matters.

I just wonder why you'd be against helping them? Like we can disagree on the right approach, but certainly there is something that can be done. — Echarmion

There's a book written by a black gentleman titled, "Stop Helping Us," or something to that effect. He can explain it better than I, but the gist is that the "helping" needs to be in the providing of opportunity, not handouts. Each person has to do the work themselves. Didn't you? The support must come from their parents and their communities, or it won't work.

Black individuals will have success the same as any other group once they fix their families and communities and make success a priority. It's that simple.

Black people are great and I don't know anybody who thinks differently. Really.

Well done.

We really talking 'bout the Royals now? In a philosophy forum?

BLM seems to be a Marxist political group — synthesis

Well, I don;t see anything that links them to Marx; although doubtless some BLM supporters are Marxist, being a Marxist is not on the prerequisite... So I;m going out on a limb and saying that it might seem so to you, but you would be wrong.

Show some evidence.

you just can't say, "Look at that problem, obviously everybody is racist." — synthesis

I didn't.

...thought that creating a welfare state would do anything but end-up as it always does, creating massive dependency... — synthesis

...like it does here, and in Europe? Could it be you're doing it wrong?

It seems quite consistent to be in support of some violent insurrections and not in support of others. Neither the violence nor the insurrection parts of it are inherently wrong, it's a matter of how it's done, why it's done, and what're the consequences. — fdrake

Hence discretion, reasoning and knowledge is important. Many don't have that.

Especially thanks to the fact that people can create their alternate reality echo chamber and join their others, and politicians are willing to go along with the wild narrative, this can lead to mass hysteria that enforces false reality. This can become a real problem. I've heard it myself in 2019: a Republican member of the House giving a speech (to an empty chamber) on what a threat the FBI poses on the US people. It was then absurd as it is now, even if Washington DC was peaceful and beautiful back then. This is the consequence of the rhetoric.

Usually it's not so. The classical terrorist cell is a group which works like a cult. Hence terrorists can be totally estranged from reality. I remember an interview of an old German leftist activist, who had debated Baader-Meinhof gang (or Red Army Fraction, 1970-1998) members, who believed literally that they were living in Nazi Germany. The activist tried to convice them that post-WW2 West Germany isn't the Third Reich or the continuation of the Third Reich, but to no, the terrorists had made up their minds.

Yet once that thinking starts to spread from a small cult to mainstream, then you have a problem. And even if there is now a media frenzy about it, it is understandable that if a person totally believes in what Trump says (and the other politicians for example in the Stop the steal rally on January 6th) then it's on to Capitol Hill to "protect the Constitution". Understanding that doesn't mean you accept of support that, but gives a better picture of how dangerous the situation is.

Adam Smith described it as an invisible hand. It would be madness of the highest order to dispense with it.
— counterpunch

And Adam Smith was referring to God. He was a religious person, and it's not exactly subtle. — Echarmion

Adam Smith? Wealth of Nations? 1776? Thought God was producing and distributing goods and services? Did he? If you say so dude! I thought he thought it was the rationally self interest economic decisions of individuals in a free market. But God, you say? Well I never!

The thing is, though, that there has always been an over-arching authority since capitalism began. Capitalism developed under historically strong states. — Echarmion

It's fascinating that you would comment on something you don't understand at all. The distinction here is between a capitalist economy and a communist economy. In a capitalist economy, people are free to own things, and employ their capital as they see fit. "It is not by the goodwill of the butcher or baker that I have my supper, but by their regard to their own self interest." It's distributed economic decision making - and as if by an invisible hand, the self interested actions of individuals conspire to produce the goods and services people want and need.

In a communist, command economy - people are not free to own things. The state owns everything, and plans economic production. A centralised authority making decisions about what to produce and how goods are distributed. Consequently, communists can't allow people freedom. People must do what they're told, because they too are factors of production. You must do the job you're assigned, not one you would choose. People cannot have freedom of political opinion, or freedom of speech. There is one party, it owns everything and tolerates no opposition - because the state is responsible for production. Communism has never worked. It is responsible for genocides in Russia and China, ten times worse than Hitler.

You seem to be opposed to seeing any problems with the idea of superiority, and my view of seeing people as being of equal worth and value. You do point to the evolutionary importance of superiority. However, I am wondering what system of society you are advocating, in terms of ranking according to certain measures of superiority. Would you be wishing to maintain the status quo or challenge power dynamics?

My point about superiority took place within a discussion about political correctness. However, all discussions gets broken up in this long thread. But, bearing in mind that the conversation took place originally in that context I am wondering what are your views on the importance of equality?

@Pfhorrest

Third time I've asked - are we looking at Parler refugees?

@counterpunch
@synthesis

Both joined in the last week, no interest in general philosophy, only posting to the political threads.

Sure:

BLM: Timeline of notable events and demonstrations in the United States

Adam Smith? Wealth of Nations? 1776? Thought God was producing and distributing goods and services? Did he? — counterpunch

No.

you say so dude! — counterpunch

I don't.

I thought he thought it was the rationally self interest economic decisions of individuals in a free market. — counterpunch

It makes no sense to refer to the rational self-intetested decisions of individuals as an "invisible hand". They're not invisible, for one. Nor would it occur to anyone to describe the individuals making up the whole as the "hand leading it".

Also the actual quote is this:

(...) by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.

Note that it says "as in many other cases", so it does not sound as if we're talking about something that's only relevant to markets.

It's fascinating, that you would comment on something you don't understand at all. — counterpunch

It's fascinating that you would write two paragraphs that have nothing to do with what I wrote.

I'd stick to Umberto Eco's 14 points for using that word.

I've a little speech I use to explain to kids why they shouldn't use the word "Fuck" unthinkingly. There are some words that have great power - they grab attention. You don't hear folk in authority - I use parents, teachers, doctors as the example - using "fuck"; it doesn't happen. But imagine if it did. Then they would have your attention. That's the power of the word; choose when to use it with care.

BLM seems to be a Marxist political group — synthesis

Question: How many Marxists do you think there are? (Marxist = have read at least his shorter writings and understand them; apply at least some Marxist principles like class conflict, surplus value... to contemporary problems.) Anyone can claim to be a Marxist, a leftist, anti-fascist, revolutionary, or anything else, without actually being such a thing. After selling Marxism for over 10 years (while working in a Marxist organization), we found interested buyers to be few and far between.

Substituting identity conflict for class conflict is not, in my humble opinion, proper Marxist practice. Any number of affinity groups have reason to work for their own advancement. but there's nothing inherently Marxist about that. As a group, black people have good reasons to engage in community based political activity. They don't need Uncle Karl to justify themselves 

I'd never heard of Parler before it was de-platformed by left wing, political correctness nutters who have no interest in free speech, but only want to hear their own opinions parroted back to them. That so, the question isn't what I'm doing on a philosophy forum, it's what are all you lefties doing here?

Left wing philosophies are utterly incoherent, by which I mean subjectivism, critical theory, post-modernism and neo marxism. If you want to discuss any of these, or indeed, my own philosophy - which is objectivist, evolutionary, structuralist, moral realist, capitalist - and intended to secure a sustainable future - I'll be only too happy to oblige you.

OK. I'll take your word for it.

...de-platformed by left wing, political correctness nutters who have no interest in free speech — counterpunch

...Zuckerberg? Bezos? You sure?

It's fascinating that you would write two paragraphs that have nothing to do with what I wrote. — Echarmion

Just trying to help!

It wasn't facebook that hosted Parler, as far as I know, nor Amazon. It was google. But it was left wing political correctness nutters moaning about people enjoying free speech that got it closed down.

edit: correction - apparently Amazon provided "the online tools to run the app" - but it was amazon, google and apple together, that stuck the knife in. Not facebook.