In any case, by now the ideology of "freedom" and "leave me alone" is so strong in the US (and being fair, is also growing in other parts of the world), that I don't know what could overcome it. Not that it cannot be defeated, just that I don't see how at the moment. — Manuel
I'm not denying that some people genuinely hoped that they could built a Marxist state. But i'm not talking about what people hoped or wished for, I'm looking at what existing communities actually were built around. — ChatteringMonkey
Marxist movements where political movements looking to overthrow the existing structure, looking to tear down... in the first place. Whatever came after was something else. — ChatteringMonkey
And I mean this shouldn't be surprising really, if you look at what the common values of the left are, they are critical or reactionary for the most part... they don't stand on their own. It's freedom from something else, non-discrimination in reaction to some discriminatory traditional practice, equality as a reaction to inequalities created by existing societal structures, etc... — ChatteringMonkey
into a system of multiple elites: an educated left wing elite and an income / wealth right wing elite, both of which are inegalitarian. The left wing elite is interested in cooperation, but not to the point where is would endanger it's privileges, and the right wing is committed to competition as the basic principle. — Echarmion
This to me seems to be a classic statement of what is generally more an American frame of society versus individualism. I imagine it would have wide support. — Tom Storm
It's not just neo-liberal ideology that is to blame though, that's only part of the story I'd say and a bit short-sighted. Socialism historically has been instrumental in breaking down any societal story that connects communities, be it religion, nationalism, ethnic traditions etc... . Granted a lot of those stories are suspect in that they also serve to justify certain power structures and all inequalities and injustices that come with that. But still, what have ideologies on the left been other than 'critical', i.e. aimed at tearing down something rather than building up a community around shared ideas. — ChatteringMonkey
my intention is not to bash the left here, just to say that neo-liberalism is far from the only cause, — ChatteringMonkey
So beware what you wish for. "Valuing what we do together", building communities usually implies values and stories build around common goods and goals, and those usually end up not being very sensitive to particular individuals. Or do we really think we can have our cake and eat it too? — ChatteringMonkey
The lack of organization comes from the fact that both political parties are inconsistent and hypocritical. They adopt opposing view points. The left asserts that they are all about "choice" in one domain, but then deny choice in other domains. This is because both parties have both liberal and authoritarian tendencies. What about a party that has only liberal tendencies? Well, that would be the Libertarian party. — Harry Hindu
I don't know if we're just talking (metaphorically) different languages here, but this juxtaposition makes no sense to me. What people hope and wish for is usually a central part of what communities are "actually" build around. — Echarmion
That's basically the exact opposite of how I see things. The whole reason Marxism was so powerful and ended up so terrible was because it had, as it's goal, a powerful utopian vision - the classless society. A Rousseauean paradise. And because it was such a grand goal, people were willing to do grand things for it - including grand destruction. — Echarmion
I know others have, correctly in my view, said that neoliberalism cannot possibly account for everything. True. But it does account for a large part of our current global problems. They've been organizing for more than 80 years.
The left does not have that... — Manuel
This to me seems to be a classic statement of what is generally more an American frame of society versus individualism. I imagine it would have wide support.
— Tom Storm
Probably. But it's also complete BS. — Xtrix
Then your notion of "socialism" is strange indeed, and scope of history limited. — Xtrix
I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. There's risk in anything -- whether we join together or not. There is far greater risk, in my view, of clinging to this dogma of rugged individualism, and so keeping ourselves isolated and trying to "go it alone" on everything. There is far greater power in numbers, working as a team, collaboration, networking, solidarity, education, etc. This is the only point. It has been systematically beaten out of people's heads for decades.
You appear to be overthinking it. — Xtrix
Personally, I'm confused about all the slings and arrows toward socialism. — James Riley
Secondly, this nonsense about “there is no society” is laughable. Of course societies consist of individuals, just as forests consist of trees. So what? Doesn’t mean there’s no forests or societies. Any more than saying “there aren’t any individuals, because individuals consist only of cells.”
All she’s doing is creating a false picture as a pretext to shift responsibility away from collective action and the public sphere, to individuals and private ownership. Hence the policies against unions and the rhetoric about “government is the problem.”
It’s complete BS. Always has been. — Xtrix
I'm European, most governments in Europe aren't really socialist at this point. — ChatteringMonkey
Socialist movement were fiercely anti-clerical, they sure did have a big hand in secularisation... and failed to provide a alternative story that inspired forming communities around. — ChatteringMonkey
What are they? Or, more precisely, what were they before the recent response to immigration? The reason I ask is, I want some of that, and yet my fellow Americans scream "Socialism" at the top of their lungs whenever anyone mentions the tax rates and benefits in the rest of the developed world. — James Riley
You see my problem? The Thatcher position is much easier to articulate and is elegant to read and hear. Yours is jagged and defensive. 'Complete BS' is not an argument.
Can you write a paragraph of simple elegance to rival hers, from a communitarian perspective?
As someone who has advised governments and fought neoliberal excesses here, I have tried for years and have found it difficult. — Tom Storm
No much of an argument to respond to here. I think it's pretty uncontroversial that socialism was instrumental in tearing down existing societal structures... like say religious institutions. — ChatteringMonkey
The point you are making (one which I agree with to be clear) has implication, not mere eventualities or risks... and I'm not sure people realise this and/or are willing to accept those implications. — ChatteringMonkey
I agree with you point, and I was looking to take it bit further... but it's fine, we can leave it at this. — ChatteringMonkey
That's different. If you want slogans and propaganda, there are all kinds out there. Plenty to rival Thatchers. "Things are better together" -- simple, easy. Strength in numbers. "We are the 99%". Resist "divide and conquer." "Come together" (to quote the Beatles). Whatever you like.
If you can't find that stuff, you're not looking hard enough. And frankly, I don't think Thatchers paragraph is very "elegant" at all. Not just grammatically but also in content. But to each his own. — Xtrix
What I said was, I bet you would struggle write a simple elegant paragraph articulating community over individualism in the manner of that speech of Thatcher's. Whatever you may think of her she and her team had a solid grasp of communication. — Tom Storm
What I said was, I bet you would struggle write a simple elegant paragraph articulating community over individualism in the manner of that speech of Thatcher's. — Tom Storm
In any case, it has very much managed to seep into all of us to some extent or other. It may be starting to crack, as evidenced by Biden's agenda, which far, far from ideal, is a step away from austerity. — Manuel
Telling people what they want to hear has always had an easier go of it, especially with those a mile wide and an inch deep. (I'm talking about you.) — James Riley
proponents of neoliberalism are very good at propaganda. Was this really your only point? In that case: yes, agreed. — Xtrix
But Thatcher did not tell the voters what they wanted to hear. What is fascinating is how neoliberalism has made people vote against their own interests, through ideas such as her paragraph above. It isn't in anyone's interests to minimize community. But the ideas grab hold of people. — Tom Storm
I don't think you're understanding that quotation.
Martin Luther King isn't say that being poor is individualistic, he's exposing a common attitude taken by those in power: they decry socialism and encourage "rugged individualism." In reality, it's actually the reverse of that -- i.e., what we actually have is socialism for the rich, where they get tax cuts, subsidies, bailouts, and protections, while the poor are told to be rugged individuals who shouldn't be asking for handouts from the "Welfare state." — Xtrix
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.