Thanks again for your abusive, ill informed, half assed, hateful opinion! — counterpunch

The only appropriate response to a deluded individual who listens to no one and has no ideas.

Scientific method emerged 100 years before the industrial revolution — counterpunch

You don't know what you're talking about. But it's nice to see you fit right in with the typical behavior of most ignoramuses -- always speaking with utmost assurance in their own (believed) acumen.

The scientific method doesn't exist. That's a fairy tale. But even if it did, it didn't "emerge" at a date, and certainly not "100 years before the industrial revolution," which is itself difficult to date. Some estimate around 1750, which would make your bogus date 1650, which is completely arbitrary. Galileo was already dead by that point -- to take one example.

I don't even know why I'm bothering, to be honest. But almost everything you say is so stupid I feel compelled to respond. It's too easy a target.

To maintain that religious, political and economic ideological description of the world - a scientific understanding of reality was ignored, downplayed, undermined - over hundreds of years. — counterpunch

:yawn:

OK Richard Dawkins. What a boring analysis. Also has the benefit of being completely wrong.

But you're welcome to keep believing it. In your world, the problem is the ignoring of science and the solution to the climate crisis is magma energy. Got it. Everyone is riveted. Now go away.

I'm not against "free" markets as we understand them in mixed economies but against the idiotic laissez-faire nonsense. I am against societies that are diminishing people, resources and everything else into their monetary value. I'm against the concentration of power that comes along with it, I'm against the asymmetry that arises from all these effects resulting in a split between "capitalists" and "labourers" and rich vs. poor. — Benkei

This is well said— and wasted on the utter buffoon you’re talking to. Still I applaud you.

You’re forgetting a simple principle: capitalism is anything that’s worked and led to benefits, and anything that doesn’t— is not capitalism.

It’s a religious belief in capitalism as a magic system that cures all, provided we do it correctly, that lies at the heart of people like magma man. Unshakable belief.

The root cause of climate change is our mistaken relation to science — counterpunch

No, it isn’t. Assert it a million times— doesn’t make it so.

Science grew up with capitalism, and has been appropriated for profit, usually at the expense of the public (eg computers, the internet, pharmaceuticals, etc).

As usual, you have no idea what you’re talking about— and I have no interest in explaining it to you. You wouldn’t hear it anyway. Just be happy with your delusions of solving the world’s problem by fiat.

The root cause of climate change is the ideological context within which capitalism operates — counterpunch

exclude science as an understanding of reality. — counterpunch

Capitalism is an ideology. It’s the religious belief in the free market and the primacy of profit— all else is externality. Capitalism doesn’t exclude science at all.

That certainly lets the USSR and the CCP off the hook. — jgill

They’re state capitalist systems as well.

A solution overlooked by the thousands of actually qualified people working on this important issue.
— Xtrix

This happens. — Benkei

No it doesn’t. Not on this level.

How could we create antibodies if we weren’t in a sense conscious of the disease? — NOS4A2

For a normal person, this would be the stupidest thing they've said on the forum. For you, maybe it makes the top 20.

invested in making capitalism the villain of the piece, but it's just not true. — counterpunch

Capitalism is the reason for climate change. That’s a fact. Holding your hand to help you understand it isn’t of interest to me. When a system values short term profits, and anything else is considered an externality, this is what happens. Seen clearly in the Exxon memos.

Take your capitalist/magma wet dreams elsewhere.

Capitalism is not to blame. — counterpunch

Yes, it is. Short term profits, all else is externality. That’s the only reason we’re here right now.

You’re not a philosopher, and you have no solutions — because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

A lot of that I like.

:up:

It's vague idea. You have no clue about its technical or economic viability. You don't even have a proof of concept at this point. — Benkei

But he, and he alone, has the solution. No clue about what he's talking about, or about pesky technical details, but he's got the solution. A solution overlooked by the thousands of actually qualified people working on this important issue.

Talk about delusions of grandeur. Leave the little crackpot to his illusions.

I am a philosopher addressing the question of whether a sustainable future is possible — counterpunch

:rofl:

Cringe-inducing. No self-awareness whatsoever.

I would have thought it were obvious capitalism is a good system — counterpunch

That's because you're an embarrassingly simpleminded individual who is too busy with his own delusions to hear a word anyone else says.

in that a left wing approach to climate change will undermine capitalism — counterpunch

Since capitalism is the cause of this mess, one would hope it's not only undermined but destroyed completely.

Unconscious doesn’t have to mean automatic and split off from consciousness. — Joshs

By definition it does. Not everything unconscious is "automatic," true. It helps to give concrete examples: things happening at the cellular level are unconscious. Your liver's function is unconscious. Your breathing is usually unconscious, but can be made to function under conscious control. I liken much of our average behavior to breathing -- yes, you can control and direct it at times, but mostly it's unconscious and automatic. Most of our behavior is habitual. Habits are mostly unconscious, again almost by definition.

It's not that it's "split off" from anything, it's just how we live. If we want to define consciousness to include habit, fine. But then we're just off to playing word games again.

Enactive, embodied approaches to cognition reveal the body as integrated with mind in a complex and inseparable fashion. — Joshs

We have no technical notion of "body," so to say they're "integrated" is meaningless to me. Yes, the human being is a complex entity. But that we knew already.

Rather, the unconscious is a kind of implicit consciousness. — Joshs

See above about word games. Now we're just defining our way into believing that everything is conscious. But that's just not the reality. There are all kinds of things I do that I have no memory of, am not aware of, etc. -- from complex behavior like driving to the inner workings of my body. If we want to claim this is "implicit consciousness," then we're off to a computer model of the mind, where rules are "stored" somewhere in consciousness. That's not convincing to me.

Didn’t know he was a General. :wink:

I am not convinced that we are that unconscious and I think that we have the ability to develop as self conscious beings. — Jack Cummins

There’s nothing to be convinced of— it’s a simple fact. Yes, we can develop as human beings and we can think and plan and develop awareness. The fact that most of our existence is not directed by conscious activity doesn’t man conscious activity doesn’t play an important role in our lives.

Also, I think that we have a certain amount of choice about how we develop as individual selves, — Jack Cummins

I’m not denying that we have choices. But when you look at your average behavior, it doesn’t involve rational choice and isn’t deliberative.

I think that it varies how people understand the concept of self, within different psychology models and within the various systems of meditation. Also, I think that individuals vary in the way in which they think about the self. — Jack Cummins

True— but this can be said about literally everything.

Some people probably operate on a more automatic basis than others, and it all depends on how much people stop and reflect on the processes. — Jack Cummins

In some ways. In other ways we’re all mostly automated, unconscious beings. There’s no way around it. From our breathing and heart beating to our internal workings of our organs, there’s far more unconscious activity going on than conscious— leaving aside more complex behavior, which is itself largely unconscious (though it does vary).

But, I do think that the models of how we think about the self probably affect how we conceptualize the experience of self because it is an interpretative process. — Jack Cummins

Yes. Our understanding of self is like the understanding of the world— it varies, it involves interpretation, perception, cultural conditioning, and so on. The same is true of human being (human nature) and existence in general. Why we think in terms of a “self” and what this term embodies is an interesting question. I think a major influence is from Descartes, but that’s not saying much.

Try meditating and see if you can find where or what the self is. In Buddhism it’s called “anatta” (Pali) — non-self. Just impersonal changing phenomena.

In our daily lives, I don’t think there’s much thought about the self. It’s an idea more basic than mind or subjectivity, but when you look at most of our activity, I don’t think “self” actually plays a big role as a concept. Much more about habit and automaticity.

In which direction exactly? Wealth inequality is higher than ever, you run the world's largest gulag system, corporate capture of government power is has probably never been more prevalent, US life expectancy is falling, your infrastructure is crumbling, your housing market is back up to 2008 levels with no countervailing forces in sight, your public services have been gutted, your press has never been more subject to corporate imperatives ... — StreetlightX

Well when you put it that way…

But we have some decent pizza places.

Significant change does not occur so long as the ruling classes do not feel threatened. — StreetlightX

Yes, but you know as well as I do that doesn’t exclusively mean threat of violence.

There’s been progress even under our oligarchic system. If we reserve “significant” only for systemic change, then unfortunately you’re right.

Yeah yeah, the organizers have been so tremendously successful so far. — StreetlightX

Because police brutality continues, yes. But by that standard the anti-war movement wasn’t successful either, nor the early civil rights movement, etc.

Burning police stations has the opposite effect as well. Just gives police more sympathy and Fox easier material. But I’m guessing you know all this already and are just being provocative. Still it’s worth reminding ourselves of when enraged by the lack of any significant progress.

80% of the American public is "politically ignorant" meaning they are so ignorant that they can not answer very basic questions about American politics. — Saphsin

What is your source for this? I’m actually interested.

ean towards Erik Olin Wright's formulation of "non-reformist reformism" on the path to socialism. Let me know if you're sympathetic to it — Saphsin

Sure. There are many paths we can take. I’m for Revolution as well, actually. It’s just that no one is starting one — and no one listens to me! So I’m left with the most realistic options.

Not enough neighbourhoods were set on fire. — StreetlightX

That’s just silly. Talk to an organizer about why, but the reasons are fairly obvious. It’d be as effective as the WU in the 60s. May make us feel better, but takes the cause backwards.

You missed the Antifa and BLM "mostly peaceful" riots last summer in which at least 23 people were shot dead, — fishfry

Shot dead by whom? Cite your sources— seems bogus to me, or hiding context.

There were massive protests all last summer, millions of people in fact. The vast majority of people—99%— were peaceful. I know conservative media loves to try to portray it all as “chaos,” but we already know why that is. The same reason they’re trying to portray the sacking of the capitol as akin to a “guided tour.”

I see you’re a consumer of this fiction. What a shocker.

No, I don’t think so and for the same reason I stated. I don’t know of any solution, but there has to be a better alternative than aggrandizing the state.

It was government posturing and regulations that led to censorship on social media in the first place. — NOS4A2

Yeah, we know. Because in your world, government — to quote St. Reagan — is always the problem.

Let me guess: the solution is the free market?

When I was younger, my mother bought me "Looking at Philosophy," which was fun. I like "Story of Philosophy" by Durant, as well. Those are fine for anyone new. A lot of other good suggestions on here as well. The hard part will be picking from all of them!

Your OP was a whistle to the local dogs, who are now barking at nothing. — Banno

Didn't think there were this many.

No one's opinions should be censored in our constitutional republic. PERIOD!!!!!! — charles ferraro

As if you have, or have ever had, any principle whatsoever. I think four years of Trump took away all doubt about the "integrity" of conservatives in this country. You're simply upset that Trump got booted from Twitter. Pretend to be outraged about "first amendment" issues, but it fools no one.

The social media platforms are major corporations. Corporations have far too much power in this country. Trump and the Republican Party gave them even greater power. Didn't seem to care about this issue back then, when handing out over a trillion in tax cuts. When it starts to effect them, suddenly they become trust-busters. So I laugh at your tears.

--

Opinions shouldn't be censored. These companies shouldn't have the monopolies they have, with zero regulation. They're also responsible for designing algorithms that accelerate dangerous disinformation. Now the government is asking them to better regulate themselves, as if this is the solution. It isn't.

Most of The Left do not want the mere reforms you've listed, we want to change, that is, replace "the system" – governmental & economic – completely. — 180 Proof

Well that's speculation. It's hard to say. Maybe they want structural changes in the form of Keynesian policies. Maybe they want an end to what's called "capitalism" altogether. What we do know is where the country stands on these issues. I think deep structural change is wanted -- I want it as well. But short of a revolution, that's not going to happen. Changes happen gradually and require hard work sustained over time. But as I said before, I'm all for radical changes if I'm missing something -- I'm there if there's a revolution. Give me something to sign and I'll sign it. But I don't see it happening in my lifetime. So we have to work within the confines of reality.

Specifically, we want to change the game from shareholder control to stakeholder control and not just change the rules which perpetuate "the status quo" (i.e. shareholder control). The latter are "liberals" at most, many are "conservatives" too and not what The Left consider "left", whereas the former are (radical) Leftists — 180 Proof

That's interesting you mention stakeholder control. I created a thread about that here. But a lot of that reminds me of greenwashing. I like the words, but it's probably just more delay tactics so we don't come for their blood.

It's funny you mention that as radical change, though. Unless you're meaning something different when you say "stakeholder control", which I take to mean companies taking into account customers, workers, environment, etc., rather than just shareholders (i.e., away from the Friedman Doctrine), I see it as more of a system we had in the 50s and 60s -- the era of managerialism and the "soulful corporation." I frankly think that is a welcome step forward, and we need to look no further than the economies of those decades to see what the effects could be.

But when I think "radical," I'm thinking worker ownership and control of industry, in the anarchist tradition (or anarco-syndicalist tradition anyway). I see this happening already in worker co-ops. Very successful.

That's how I see things and, to the extent we disagree, Xtrix, I suspect it's more of a matter of semantics than substance, and not worth quibbling over definitions & labels for me to get my point across when I say "the Left, as far as the Anerican electorate is concerned, are outnumbered (approximately?) 10:1" IMO. If you still disagree, then let's agree to disagree on the precise ratio, but I don't suspect we disagree that to a significant degree The Left is outnumbered by, let's call them, the Center-Right + Right in the US. Or do we disagree even on that? — 180 Proof

No, I was nit-picking. But I only did so because I think it's important to emphasize just how many people there are out there who think along similar lines. Whether the 10:1 ratio is correct or not in any other respect, I have no idea. Maybe you're right. But like you said, not terribly important. I don't think they're a silent majority, for example.

The very idea of there being an uprising is skipping steps, there isn't any other option than hard work by organizers and taking over local governments and councils, which accelerated due to the Sanders campaign. It's difficult to keep track of the work being done because we live in a continent sized country but it's there if you've been following your state politics, just don't expect to overturn the country in the next few years. — Saphsin

I think this is exactly right. Although I'm there if there's a revolution!

America has long been a majority center-right country and the left (which isn't by any stretch a monolith) is outnumbered, I hazard to guess, by a ratio of at least 10-to-1. — 180 Proof

The majority of Americans are in favor of taxing the rich, free public education, student debt relief, universal healthcare, climate change mitigation, gun reform, etc. Poll after poll. If that's what we mean by "left," then we by far have the numbers. So I don't think the 10-1 is accurate in that sense.

The problem is that we have no organization. We don't even have a labor party as most other comparable countries do. There are many reasons for this, of course, but chief among them (in my opinion) is the education system and the media. These are the institutions that control thought; they're called, respectively, indoctrination centers and propaganda outlets -- and this is accurate.

So we're left with apathy, disenfranchisement, passivity, hopelessness. Most importantly, the traditional means of circumventing these systems of thought control have been destroyed or weakened: unions, independent media, social groups, etc. There's also the cultivation of fear and hatred of one another. All this is to say nothing about the (structural) fact that we're also being worked to death, and so have little energy or time to dedicate to educating and organizing ourselves.

Add it up and it's no wonder there's not an organized "left" in this country. But it's there. The fact that people were shocked about the Sanders campaign should tell you something.

The non-establishment right aren't very organized either, they just fight a lot harder. They also have structural advantages electorally, so are disproportionately represented in government.

What exactly are you implying by "accept"?
— Xtrix
You accept the party when you just hope that the party would change it's course as an internal event. Or think that it's meaningless to vote for any other party however disappointed you are in the party: that your vote would be then "lost". — ssu

You're completely wrong about the first point. It's typical of those who apparently believe voting is the only political action available, in fact (not to say you're one of them, but this line of argument is often used by them).

But no, it's not about sitting back and "hoping." As I've said many times, it's about doing the opposite: not simply sitting down after voting and passively watching with fingers crossed, but organizing, activism, involvement, educating oneself and others, developing and pushing for programs, etc. The Sunrise Movement is a good example of this. There would be no Green New deal proposal if not for them. That's significant, and it's not simply a matter of voting. It's what happens after you vote where real change is created. I've said this all along.

As for the second, you're somewhat correct -- except in the case of a non-swing state, in which case there's some argument to be made for voting third party. To not vote at all, or to give your vote to a third party, in a swing state, rather than to the least damaging of the two parties (who will realistically come into power) is irrational and irresponsible. That's just a matter of counting. Whether it's meaningful is not the point -- it may very well be meaningful to you. But that doesn't circumvent arithmetic, our feelings of disappointment aside.

Socialism is like talking about "god" -- it can mean almost anything you want. If universal health care and free public education is socialism, fine. If not, that's fine too. Who cares. — Xtrix

One should care what parties are in favor of them. It's not actually socialism, you know. Many right-wing parties at least in Europe are for them. Good example is Sweden. Put often to be an example of socialism, the country is quite capitalistic and "capitalism friendly". Modern Social Democracy isn't totally against capitalism. — ssu

Again: talk of "socialism" and "capitalism" are essentially useless, at least until we define our terms. The point is the policies. So saying a country is "capitalist friendly" is meaningless to me. Most countries, as I think you're aware, are mixed economies. In the US, we're a state-capitalist economy. Massive state intervention on all levels. That's not the capitalism of Friedman or Smith or Ricardo.

So the point is the policies, and you're right -- we should see which parties support these policies, all labels aside. And it just so happens that the Democratic party in the United States are becoming more receptive to these policies, though we have a LONG way to go. Still, there's a progressive wing within in Sanders, AOC, Warren, Markey, and others. We can and should constantly hold them accountable criticize them mercilessly, push them further and further, etc. But given the Republican party, and how dangerous they are, the Democrats are also currently the best shot we have at getting anything through whatsoever. With the Republicans, there's no chance. Zero. In fact they now stand for the polar opposite of what we want policy-wise.

Right, because you're doing so much to change it by complaining about it on the internet.
— Xtrix
It really isn't my thing as a foreigner to do that. I'm still quite happy at politics in my country. The US-type polarization hasn't yet landed here. Hopefully the bullying never reaches these shores. — ssu

OK -- where do you live?

What I'm saying is that many people have these illusions on how much power the current political parties have and assume that the landscape is totally fixed. It isn't. In the US example a third party could rise to oppose the duopoly if it would have the strategy to start from the grass roots level, from communal and state level. Not thinking that a rapid dash of a third contender in the Presidential elections would do the job. It won't. To improve (or restore) democracy, one first has to believe in it. — ssu

Well count me as a believer. Count me as a believer in abolishing the electoral college. Count me in for overthrowing capitalism, for that matter.

There are lots of things I'd like to see happen, and I'll continuing pushing for them as long as I'm alive. But as you said, a national third party hasn't gained any traction yet. Ross Perot, oddly enough, garnered the most votes of any third party in decades with his "Reform Party" in 1992. Some say he only helped Clinton get elected. But regardless, if it's a matter of belief, then it's up to us to build up that belief, start small, and build up a third party and then hopefully spread to other states and, eventually, on a national level.

You're right, it's not inevitable. It's actually extremely odd that a country like ours doesn't have some kind of labor party. But as long as most people don't find that strange, it's unlikely to change.

Well, if you accept the two party system, then don't be surprised when nothing really changes. — ssu

What exactly are you implying by "accept"? I accept the electoral college too, and death for that matter. I don't like any of them. I work to change what can be changed. But at present, they're a reality. So yes, I accept reality despite my feelings, and work within that reality. I encourage everyone to do so.

Besides, a lot of younger Americans don't actually want socialism in the classic sense. — ssu

"in the classic sense" is meaningless. Socialism is like talking about "god" -- it can mean almost anything you want. If universal health care and free public education is socialism, fine. If not, that's fine too. Who cares.

So you both will uphold the two party system. — ssu

:roll: :yawn:

Right, because you're doing so much to change it by complaining about it on the internet.

I must be too stupid to understand why a big ball of molten rock - 4000 miles deep and 26,000 miles around, isn't a viable source of energy — counterpunch

Indeed. Despite it being explained to you over and over again.

I guess some people just need to believe they have a secret that solves the world's problems, despite knowing next to nothing about it. Oh well.

Cool, but if you break it down by country, you can see fertility rate vs CO2 footprint. — frank

Completely irrelevant. I was discussing overpopulation, not climate change.

And getting worse. But really because of the greed of only a few countries. Otherwise we could sustain our population for a while.

Still, to outright say "it's not a thing" is just more buffoonery. Much like the super-discovery of magma energy by an internet troll. — Xtrix

Over population is a real and horrible thing. — James Riley

And getting worse. But really because of the greed of only a few countries. Otherwise we could sustain our population for a while.

Still, to outright say "it's not a thing" is just more buffoonery. Much like the super-discovery of magma energy by an internet troll.

I can't explain why again, because I tried twice. Then again, they say third time's a charm. — counterpunch

Oh good, the crackpot is explaining something:

If you still don't get it, there's no need to contradict me again. — counterpunch

lol. Yes, because of the two of you, it's definitely he who "doesn't get it."

I want to commend you for an excellent post, and very informative. Nice to have someone who knows what they're talking about. Good luck getting through to the buffoon, but thank you for the reasoned responses for the rest of us.

Are you a geologist?

Bernie is more like the lure for those young Americans who basically are for social democracy (or that kind of stuff), yet Bernie will bow down to the party machine once the actual decision time comes. Bernie is all too happy to be "the second runner up" to what the party leaders want. And if he gets some legislation through, some success in moving the party to left, that is all he wants. — ssu

But this leaves out crucial details of the actual circumstances. There's a difference between "bowing down" and being a realist. Right now Manchin is in the way of most progressive legislation. Maybe some members like Manchin being the fall guy, since it lets them off the hook, and if any of it came to a vote they'd be on the fence themselves. Still, he and Sinema are outspoken, so that's the reality in a 50-50 senate.

We'll see what gets done -- if they can pass this latest bill through reconciliation, that'll be a good start. Not sure how much more Bernie can do essentially by himself (with maybe a handful of others on board).

So I really don't see this as fair criticism, especially once the reality of the situation is understood. Given the stakes in the world today, and the senate context, it's necessary to compromise -- otherwise the alternative is that nothing gets done. Given the situation we find ourselves in -- climate change, inequality, etc. -- we can't simply pout it all away. Much like the election last year, and those who advocated for not voting or voting third party because Bernie didn't advance, this is completely irrational.

You see, the Democratic Party isn't a social democratic party. Hence it simply won't go for universal health care or workers rights as a fully fledged social democratic party would do. In the US you have a centrist and a right-wing party. Simple as that. — ssu

Yes, truisms and cheap cynicism gets us much farther. Too bad the approach of wishing things away doesn't work.

True, the two-party system is awful. That the DNC didn't want Bernie and managed to beat him back is also true. The fact that they're not in favor of many of Bernie's proposals -- also true. I've said all that before myself, and this is widely known. Move on from that.

I don't care for Biden or the Democrats. They happen to be our only realistic bet for anything close to being done, and they're clearly more susceptible to being pushed in the right direction. Right now it's all proposals, and not much has been enacted -- but the proposals themselves are a change. To overlook this is just as unrealistic as being an "optimist" about things.

And the idea, implied by others here, that philosophy, whether on or offline, has hitherto been--or should be--free of accolades, status indicators, social pressure, and so on, strikes me as naive. — jamalrob

And it strikes me as naive to believe adding a like button is beneficial in any way. What’s the goal, exactly? What does it tell you? What is it encouraging?

I’ll tell you: it encourages posts to become a series of one-liners. You can find that in a YouTube comment section too.

If we want to encourage turning everyone into Henny Youngman, so be it.

How many posts someone has made is more informative. I hope you resist the temptation and turn it off.

I think the whole idea of rating is useless for this forum. We're (hopefully) here to discuss things -- it's not a popularity contest. When it turns into that, it becomes Twitter and Facebook.

If that's magma, fine. I've got no truck with your magma gospel. Get out there and get it done. — James Riley

Right on. Unfortunately we're dealing with an utter crackpot and science ignoramus, so all that will get done is more trolling on the internet.