You can critique everything but that doesn't mean you are going to throw everything away. Capitalism is the only economic system there is. — synthesis

Except you're not talking about Capitalism tout court you're specifically advocating a vague aperçu of laizze faire Capitalism, in your own words "limited government" that "protects property" while condemning policies that could provide redistributive wealth to those below. I mean at least you could advocate for Keynesianism based on Marxian analyst but you're gleefully throwing that out the door too.

I've read a lot of Marx and his economic analysis was absolutely brilliant. — synthesis

My conclusion after decades of thinking about this stuff is that our best hope is to set individuals free within a framework of limited government that protects person and property and allow community institutions to gather the resources necessary to help those in need. — synthesis

Honestly incredible, it takes an exceptionally unique individual to say that Marx's critique of Capitalism was spot on and yet we must do it anyway.

And if you are working 20 hours each day building something that benefits billions of people and all you have to show for it is a mansion and a nice car then you are complete rube.

Always amusing when people can't admit they were wrong.

that's where equality comes in because what's more fair than that? — synthesis

Equality and fairness are conceptually distinct. It shouldn't take more than several seconds to realize this. Just be an adult and admit that "Equality of Outcome" is not a Leftist goal, particular around asinine things such as athleticism, or looks, etc. which are abstract and subjective anyway. Equity and fairness for Leftists revolve around material conditions.

Perhaps more to the point, all wealth ownership past, present, or hypothetical Leftist distribution is socially engineered. There is no natural wealth distribution.

" From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs " — synthesis

This by definition is not an equality of outcome. It's material consumption based on individuated needs.

Don't you think it's time to move on and make things better, as well? — synthesis

Agreed, time to get rid of the US Constitution

I always find it funny when @ssu inserts his opinion on subjects related to Black Americans when he lives in Finland, which has a population of 54,450 with a "close African background" or about 1% of the population.

Critical Race Theory seems to be the boogeyman du jour phrase for conservatives and as typical for conservatives their employment of the phrase is purposefully fuzzy and ambiguous, despite a multi-decade body of academic work behind it. While Liberalism did provide a philosophical justification for individual rights which are arguable indispensable, nevertheless the history behind Liberalism is fraught with violent oppression against non-white ethnicities (and some which we would consider white today), working classes, espoused anti-democracy, anti-egalitarianism sentiments in favor of a select emancipated class. Critical Race Theory can help expose and critique that verifiable history, including contemporary liberalism and even Marxist assumptions, and looks for ways to universalize emancipatory Liberalism without falling back into racialized and class-based demarcation that has typified Liberalism. Charles W. Mill's Black Rights/White Wrongs: The Critique of Racial Liberalism is a good read.

I haven't played them all but as I recall XII was the last one that received more or less universal acclaim, while subsequent titles have been more mixed. My favorite will always be VI.

But do you read Zizek? — ToothyMaw

I have two eyes and a heart, don't I

Only one Maw allowed in this forum

Verso is doing a May Day Sale. 40% off all books until May 17th.

Any recommendations? I previously bought a bunch of Ellen Wood books and Domenico Losurdo's Liberalism: A Counter History, all of which I recommend.

Guys it's pretty obvious that this is NOS4A2

Being a libertarian must be easy you don't have to juggle more than three thoughts at a time and you can make pretty easy money by writing a half-brained eight paragraph blog post like Does God Own Property? for some billionaire-backed think tank called Bastiat Institute for Individual Freedom or some shit. All the Senior Fellows are white and over the age of 50 and at least two are pedophiles.

*gets knocked off a boat, struggling to stay afloat in the open sea*

"leave me alone"

Mongrel Firebugs and Men of Property: Capitalism and Class Conflict in American History by Steve Fraser

FWIW I did think the Moretti book was very interesting.

I see no reason why this situation would forfeit his essential freedom, which can only be a result of voluntary choice, or such is my view — Tzeentch

If voluntary choice is the one true expression of freedom irrespective of socially and situational context, then we must admire the conditions of Robinson Crusoe. Shipwrecked on a deserted island, sure, but every action is done of his own will. What freedom!

Look one post above that, champ

None of which, at least initially, a result of his voluntary choice. — Tzeentch

Oh look moral voluntarism...that's just an internet philosophy

Oh, then by whom, by virtue of their existence, are they rightfully owned or to whom are they rightfully indebted? — Tzeentch

Unsurprising that someone who has a Thomas Sowell quote in their biography jumps on the opportunity to transform a metaphysical fact into an issue of property rights. When all you have is a hammer...

Humans are socially natal beings, born into a network of societal ties, absorb and are molded by the customs, mores, laws, languages, institutional arrangements, socio-political structures. Let's see how far you would have gotten in life without the social absorption of language acquisition. Let's see how radically different as a person you would be if you were born in a peasant barn in 1520 France.

In my experience "woke" is primarily a disparaging term used by conservatives which acquires whatever vague right-wing meaning is needed. I guess in this sense it means everything is fine the way it is. — T Clark

To clarify, I mean that the term is snidely thrown around by right-wingers, moderates, etc. to refer to anything left-of-center that requires thought terminating dismissal (i.e. "whatever vague leftist meaning is needed) detached from the original usage by Black Americans.

I love the discourse around "Woke". Clown's performing semantic juggling so that the term can acquire whatever vague leftist meaning is needed. I guess in this sense it means equality of outcome (an abstraction rejected by Marx and Engels).

Incidentally and with reference to the idea that 'humans are born free', the only people who can get away with saying that are people who have never so much as laid eyes on a child before. There are few creatures as so hopelessly dependant and subserviant as children. Kant understood this well: that any measure of freedom was the result of a great deal of discipline and tutelage, such that, having mastered our abilities and rational capacities by way of education, only then could anyone be called free. The individualist notiom of freedom is literally infantile. — StreetlightX

This is why Ayn Rand never wrote - could never write - about children in her novels, or as far as I'm aware, her non-fiction work. A philosophy incapable of approaching children is a philosophy without a future. Beyond infantile, individualism is inherently moribund - a dead ideology.

If anyone has any suggestions how the OP could be rephrased to make it more intelligible and perhaps less "controversial" I'd be more than happy to consider it. — Apollodorus

Just read Marx

one of the great discoveries from psychology is iq — Caleb Mercado

This and female hysteria, absolutely.

read about big five, fool. — Caleb Mercado

Yes I've watched 2 out of 3 winners of the Big Five: It Happened One Night and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Both are fantastic. Haven't seen The Silence of the Lambs though.

you know nothing about personality psychology — Caleb Mercado

How dare you, I am a proud Gemini

Statistically most people who are open are liberals. This is a fact. — Caleb Mercado

And all cats are girls, yes I agree

People in trait openness are liberal and people low on trait openness are conservative. — Caleb Mercado

I've spent the last two days talking about subdiscipline that I think is bullshit anyway and can't say that I care to explicate further than beyond what I've written in the other thread, so I'll just leave this article here and call it a night.

What you're reacting to seems more like armchair guessing of people's motives (yeah that is B.S.)

I saw that other thread. I personally don't put much energy concerning how liberals abuse folk psychology — Saphsin

Yeah, to be clear, I'm referring specifically to trait-based, psychological, innate, yadda yadda yadda, means through which to interpret, predict, understand, etc. politics, individually speaking or by cultural phenomenon. Perhaps I need to find a fairly universal term to avoid misunderstanding. As much as I agree that such work ultimately amounts to "armchair guessing", unfortunately it's a considered as legitimate as conservative economics by the public, with plenty of book deals, lucrative grants and speaking opportunities to Harvard graduates.

That was just a suggestion and it wasn't even mine. It isn't my fault that people don't read critiques of Marx or his theories by reputable historians and other scholars. — Apollodorus

For clarities sake you need to do a better job distinguishing what is your suggestion or position, and when you are citing someone else's opinion (and maybe source it), since this has happened several times with you. I've read critiques of Marxism along with a notable biography of Marx and while some of those personal traits listed are more or less true of Marx the idea that Marxism was constructed by Marx for personal gain and power is inexcusably idiotic. I'm quite curious what braindead oaf actually posed this.

Regarding what Marxism is; the attempt to pin it to a specific disciplinary such as philosophy, economics, is pretty pointless, uninteresting, and yet this question continues to pop up on this forum, perhaps unsurprisingly by people who have read much of Marx, if at all.

To my mind, Marx formulated a methodology, viz. Historical Materialism (which you can read more about in the chapter on Feuerbach in The German Ideology), and Marxism is Historical Materialism through the lens of Marx, or in other words, an interpretation of Historical Materialism through Marx via his writing, where one can glean specific areas of philosophic and socio-economic interest, moral positions, and how some of these interests and positions etc. changed and developed over his life time.

We know that Marx as a student was rebellious and mischievous and that contemporary descriptions portray him as “intolerant”, “autocratic”, “malicious”, “domineering” and “power-obsessed”.

In short, could it be that Marxism is not a philosophy but an elaborate hoax designed to help Marx acquire influence and power, a hoax that perhaps started as a prank and later developed into something more serious? — Apollodorus

Another example of why political psychology is bad.

gah well that's quite upsetting.

The Bourgeois: Between History and Literature by Franco Moretti

Liberalism: A Counter-History by Domenico Losurdo — Maw

This was brilliant, can't recommend enough

This is also a psychological explanation, albeit one not rooted in personality traits but social conditioning — Joshs

Sure, I'll admit to getting lazy by virtue of how other people are responding. Such as the quote below:

From my understanding of it that premise is not stressed or pivotal to the theory. — praxis

The importance of the premise re: threat and conservative worldview was explicitly provided by the social psychologists and political scientists themselves. I took the time to emphasis those remarks and reexamine them after contradictory phenomenon was provided to the authors, so that they couldn't be avoided by commentators here, but congrats, you're attempting to do so anyway.

It wasn't so much a misunderstanding as a declining of your opening gambit. — Isaac

To be clear, any attempt to psychologically map out an explanation for why and how conservatives and liberals or whatever political appellation believe what they believe is nonsense. It's about as vague as astrology and just as predictive. — Maw

Not sure how my original post varies from what I've subsequently been saying, but whatever.

Is it possible that there are some personality traits that are statistically more commonly shared by liberals than conservatives and others more common to conservatives? If so, is there any value in identifying them? — Fooloso4

Sure, but these are just spurious correlations, therefore, no, there is no meaningful value in identifying them.

Reductionism is not a flaw limited political psychology, nor is it a flaw which exhausts political psychology. — Isaac

Maybe you're misunderstanding what I'm specifically I'm targeting here. I'm talking about political psychology that says liberals are liberals and conservatives are conservatives because of they have X Y Z behavioral or personality traits. This is in response with the claims of the opening post and subsequent claims from the original poster. Your original, response to me, however, seems to be about political advertising targeting those who have specific political priors. That is not what I'm referring to.