The Phenomenon of Left and Right | Bret Weinstein

by Guest Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:42 pm

What is the reason for the dichotomy of the Right and the Left? What do liberals and conservatives want most? How do liberals and conservatives serve to balance one another? How might liberals change into conservatives?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V5VongCNE4

by Andy Thu Jul 26, 2018 5:10 pm

Liberals and the left want everyone to have an equal opportunity to progress and acquire wealth.
The right only want wealth for a select few and fuck the underclass.

by Guest Thu Jul 26, 2018 7:01 pm

Angry Andy wrote:Liberals and the left want everyone to have an equal opportunity to progress and acquire wealth.
The right only want wealth for a select few and fuck the underclass.

Did you watch the video?

by Andy Thu Jul 26, 2018 7:45 pm

Not yet . Have just driven 360 miles in 9 sweltering hours. Thank God for air conditioning. Now enjoying a quenching ice cold lager at Gretna. Heading for Spean Bridge in the morning.

by Original Quill Thu Jul 26, 2018 7:56 pm

Angry Andy wrote:Not yet . Have just driven 360 miles in 9 sweltering hours. Thank God for air conditioning. Now enjoying a quenching ice cold lager at Gretna. Heading for Spean Bridge in the morning.

Drop over to my wee castle on Mull, if you can spare a day. See if Sir Locky is in.

The Phenomenon of Left and Right | Bret Weinstein Glengorm-2

by Guest Thu Jul 26, 2018 8:02 pm

Angry Andy wrote:Not yet . Have just driven 360 miles in 9 sweltering hours. Thank God for air conditioning. Now enjoying a quenching ice cold lager at Gretna. Heading for Spean Bridge in the morning.

Let me know when you do and enjoy your holiday

by Andy Fri Jul 27, 2018 6:22 am

Original Quill wrote:
Angry Andy wrote:Not yet . Have just driven 360 miles in 9 sweltering hours. Thank God for air conditioning. Now enjoying a quenching ice cold lager at Gretna. Heading for Spean Bridge in the morning.

Drop over to my wee castle on Mull, if you can spare a day. See if Sir Locky is in.

Will be checking out the Seas eagles with the RSPB , followed by beer and food at the Mishnish inn at Tobermory.

by Fred Moletrousers Fri Jul 27, 2018 6:26 pm

Angry Andy wrote:Not yet . Have just driven 360 miles in 9 sweltering hours. Thank God for air conditioning. Now enjoying a quenching ice cold lager at Gretna. Heading for Spean Bridge in the morning.

I've only been to Gretna once in my life and while listening to the piper playing outside the blacksmith's forge wedding chapel I mischievously texted my daughter: "At Gretna Green. Going to make an honest woman of your mum at last."

Apparently she read the text while supervising an exam at the university where she works and exploded into a fit of giggles that disrupted the whole session!

She disrupted the proceedings even more when I sent a follow up text: "Bloody hell. It costs three quid to get into the chapel and another four hundred quid to get married...so you were still born out of wedlock!"

by Guest Fri Jul 27, 2018 6:27 pm

I see none of the left have actually commented on this properly

Where if they then obtained all the progressive views, they wanted and achieved thier goal.

That then then would in fact become Conservatives. Wanting to maintain those policies and laws???

You may even then see a flip side, where then the Conservatives become the Liberals, thus progressives

Take Soviet Russia for example. Where its policies and views were formed from the left

by Original Quill Fri Jul 27, 2018 6:30 pm

Angry Andy wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Drop over to my wee castle on Mull, if you can spare a day. See if Sir Locky is in.

Will be checking out the Seas eagles with the RSPB , followed by beer and food at the Mishnish inn at Tobermory.

The castle is right down the road from Tobermory. When you get off the ferry at Craignure, take a left (Tobermory is to the right) and just a couple of miles down the road. Incidentally, there's a pub across the parking lot, or a full lunch at the Craignure Inn.

I usually stay at the Tobermory Inn, up on the hill over the harbor. But time is long, and distances are short...so drop into my wee castle on the way up there.

by Guest Fri Jul 27, 2018 6:32 pm

Didge wrote:I see none of the left have actually commented on this properly

Where if they then obtained all the progressive views, they wanted and achieved thier goal.

That then then would in fact become Conservatives. Wanting to maintain those policies and laws???

You may even then see a flip side, where then the Conservatives become the Liberals, thus progressives

Take Soviet Russia for example. Where its policies and views were formed from the left

Bumped to get the thread on track

As the left seem very scared to acknowledge this fact

by Eilzel Sat Jul 28, 2018 2:23 am

Didge wrote:
Didge wrote:I see none of the left have actually commented on this properly

Where if they then obtained all the progressive views, they wanted and achieved thier goal.

That then then would in fact become Conservatives. Wanting to maintain those policies and laws???

You may even then see a flip side, where then the Conservatives become the Liberals, thus progressives

Take Soviet Russia for example. Where its policies and views were formed from the left

Bumped to get the thread on track

As the left seem very scared to acknowledge this fact

I only just watched it.

He never says anything negative about liberals tbh. We are overly optimistic? Well that's better than the alternative. And change in the west generally has been for the better. If I could go back amd be born in any previous decade, I'd still choose to be born in the 80s, previous ones had too many problems.

And of course if everything was absolutely perfect, economically and socially, I'd be a conservative. As would many, no doubt, since the only people who'd want to change a 'perfect system' and those who'd wish to change it for the worse Wink

by Guest Sat Jul 28, 2018 2:33 am

Eilzel wrote:
Didge wrote:

Bumped to get the thread on track

As the left seem very scared to acknowledge this fact

I only just watched it.

He never says anything negative about liberals tbh. We are overly optimistic? Well that's better than the alternative. And change in the west generally has been for the better. If I could go back amd be born in any previous decade, I'd still choose to be born in the 80s, previous ones had too many problems.

And of course if everything was absolutely perfect, economically and socially, I'd be a conservative. As would many, no doubt, since the only people who'd want to change a 'perfect system' and those who'd wish to change it for the worse

Did I say he did mate? Cool

He is a Liberal after all and I hold many of these Liberal values

And where I disagree with him on, being as you can hold both left and right values, based on the actual issue itself

He is coming at this from a collective value point, which I find very interesting

Glad you admit the point on how many left here would become Conservative based on obtaining their "said" values. Laughing

The point is left values have been achieved many times in history and it went far beyond Conservative but authoritarian

Which to me, is the more massive danger here. The same has happened also on the right of course, with extremes like Nazi Germany.

by Andy Sat Jul 28, 2018 7:54 am

Didge wrote:
Didge wrote:I see none of the left have actually commented on this properly

Where if they then obtained all the progressive views, they wanted and achieved thier goal.

That then then would in fact become Conservatives. Wanting to maintain those policies and laws???

You may even then see a flip side, where then the Conservatives become the Liberals, thus progressives

Take Soviet Russia for example. Where its policies and views were formed from the left

Bumped to get the thread on track

As the left seem very scared to acknowledge this fact

/
There are very few genuine left wingers remaining on this site, compared to the abundance of right wingers.
Perhaps that is the reason.
If one of the forum mods had driven fewer lefties away, perhaps there would be more remaining to comment.

by Guest Sat Jul 28, 2018 7:59 am

Angry Andy wrote:
Didge wrote:

Bumped to get the thread on track

As the left seem very scared to acknowledge this fact

/
There are very few genuine left wingers remaining on this site, compared to the abundance of right wingers.
Perhaps that is the reason.

Do you know Andy how badly you pound me with that same victim bullshit mentality.

Ask Eilzel, I hold many Liberal beliefs, more than right wing views. My right wing views tend to be economical

The sad point is Andy, you place people into categories

I do so to take the piss

The majority on this site lean to the left, because most here hold liberal values, which are emphatically left wing

So for you to say genuine left wing is what exactly?

Leaning towards stalin?

Prehaps, you should stop being paranoid.

I mean how many people do you think are racist on here?

Or sexist?

Or homophobic ect?

by Eilzel Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:29 am

Didge wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Didge wrote:

Bumped to get the thread on track

As the left seem very scared to acknowledge this fact

I only just watched it.

He never says anything negative about liberals tbh. We are overly optimistic? Well that's better than the alternative. And change in the west generally has been for the better. If I could go back amd be born in any previous decade, I'd still choose to be born in the 80s, previous ones had too many problems.

And of course if everything was absolutely perfect, economically and socially, I'd be a conservative. As would many, no doubt, since the only people who'd want to change a 'perfect system' and those who'd wish to change it for the worse

Did I say he did mate?

He is a Liberal after all and I hold many of these Liberal values

And where I disagree with him on, being as you can hold both left and right values, based on the actual issue itself

He is coming at this from a collective value point, which I find very interesting

Glad you admit the point on how many left here would become Conservative based on obtaining their "said" values.

The point is left values have been achieved many times in history and it went far beyond Conservative but authoritarian

Which to me, is the more massive danger here. The same has happened also on the right of course, with extremes like Nazi Germany.

Authoritarianism is a problem for both sides at the extreme. I don't believe the problems is China and the USSR were not leftist and certainly not liberal. They were caused by leftist governments attempting to control the population using that ideology.

by Guest Sat Jul 28, 2018 11:33 am

Eilzel wrote:
Didge wrote:

Did I say he did mate?

He is a Liberal after all and I hold many of these Liberal values

And where I disagree with him on, being as you can hold both left and right values, based on the actual issue itself

He is coming at this from a collective value point, which I find very interesting

Glad you admit the point on how many left here would become Conservative based on obtaining their "said" values.

The point is left values have been achieved many times in history and it went far beyond Conservative but authoritarian

Which to me, is the more massive danger here. The same has happened also on the right of course, with extremes like Nazi Germany.

Authoritarianism is a problem for both sides at the extreme. I don't believe the problems is China and the USSR were not leftist and certainly not liberal. They were caused by leftist governments attempting to control the population using that ideology.

But do you not see that was the problem with leftist ideas on around economical elftist idals?

This is where the left do make excuses

Communism was supposed to address imbalances in wealth./ All it did was cause the deaths of millions, based on agricultural or industrial national wealth. Through starvation

Sorry mate, they were leftist and why I see the far right as always a problem, but the left have a hard time recognising thaqt there is way more examples o extreme leftism in history and at the expense of people.

I hold many Liberal principles but even you see today, there is this victim ideology, that is seperating humnanity and its driven by the Far left

by Eilzel Sat Jul 28, 2018 11:58 am

Didge wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Didge wrote:

Did I say he did mate?

He is a Liberal after all and I hold many of these Liberal values

And where I disagree with him on, being as you can hold both left and right values, based on the actual issue itself

He is coming at this from a collective value point, which I find very interesting

Glad you admit the point on how many left here would become Conservative based on obtaining their "said" values.

The point is left values have been achieved many times in history and it went far beyond Conservative but authoritarian

Which to me, is the more massive danger here. The same has happened also on the right of course, with extremes like Nazi Germany.

Authoritarianism is a problem for both sides at the extreme. I don't believe the problems is China and the USSR were not leftist and certainly not liberal. They were caused by leftist governments attempting to control the population using that ideology.

But do you not see that was the problem with leftist ideas on around economical elftist idals?

This is where the left do make excuses

Communism was supposed to address imbalances in wealth./ All it did was cause the deaths of millions, based on agricultural or industrial national wealth. Through starvation

Sorry mate, they were leftist and why I see the far right as always a problem, but the left have a hard time recognising thaqt there is way more examples o extreme leftism in history and at the expense of people.

I hold many Liberal principles but even you see today, there is this victim ideology, that is seperating humnanity and its driven by the Far left

Do you honestly believe Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot serious sought to provide a good standard of living for their people where all prospered equally? Or did they use popular ideas to assume power and enslave people?

I'm not denying the greater amount of examples of disastrous leftist regimes; I'd just suggest that being down to the obvious appeal of leftist ideals, which are open to abuse by people who didn't care for workers at all.

by Guest Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:04 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Didge wrote:

But do you not see that was the problem with leftist ideas on around economical elftist idals?

This is where the left do make excuses

Communism was supposed to address imbalances in wealth./ All it did was cause the deaths of millions, based on agricultural or industrial national wealth. Through starvation

Sorry mate, they were leftist and why I see the far right as always a problem, but the left have a hard time recognising thaqt there is way more examples o extreme leftism in history and at the expense of people.

I hold many Liberal principles but even you see today, there is this victim ideology, that is seperating humnanity and its driven by the Far left

Do you honestly believe Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot serious sought to provide a good standard of living for their people where all prospered equally? Or did they use popular ideas to assume power and enslave people?

I'm not denying the greater amount of examples of disastrous leftist regimes; I'd just suggest that being down to the obvious appeal of leftist ideals, which are open to abuse by people who didn't care for workers at all.

Absolutely from a collective view point. As it was about the country and nation as a whole. Its why in Stalinist Russia, ethnic minorities suffered more than Russians. The Ukranians, Belarusians Coassacks, Poles etc suffered under Stalin. Stalin and Mao created the polices from a belief of doing a greater good for the nation and had little care millions died. They were certainly doing so from a position of powwer, but also a belief of Marxist ideals.

Pol Pot was diferent but his bases for such a system came from Maxism, just as Communism did with Mao and Stalin

My point is this. Everytime leftist ideals are to the point of making society equal, comes in the most barbaric forms. The worst example being Pol Pot, when its enforced

by Eilzel Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:07 pm

Didge wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Didge wrote:

But do you not see that was the problem with leftist ideas on around economical elftist idals?

This is where the left do make excuses

Communism was supposed to address imbalances in wealth./ All it did was cause the deaths of millions, based on agricultural or industrial national wealth. Through starvation

Sorry mate, they were leftist and why I see the far right as always a problem, but the left have a hard time recognising thaqt there is way more examples o extreme leftism in history and at the expense of people.

I hold many Liberal principles but even you see today, there is this victim ideology, that is seperating humnanity and its driven by the Far left

Do you honestly believe Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot serious sought to provide a good standard of living for their people where all prospered equally? Or did they use popular ideas to assume power and enslave people?

I'm not denying the greater amount of examples of disastrous leftist regimes; I'd just suggest that being down to the obvious appeal of leftist ideals, which are open to abuse by people who didn't care for workers at all.

Absolutely from a collective view point. As it was about the country and nation as a whole. Its why in Stalinist Russia, ethnic minorities suffered more than Russians. The Ukranians, Belarusians Coassacks, Poles etc suffered under Stalin. Stalin and Mao created the polices from a belief of doing a greater good for the nation and had little care millions died. They were certainly doing so from a position of powwer, but also a belief of Marxist ideals.

Pol Pot was diferent but his bases for such a system came from Maxism, just as Communism did with Mao and Stalin

My point is this. Everytime leftist ideals are to the point of making society equal, comes in the most barbaric forms. The worst example being Pol Pot, when its enforced

So in those cases, do you really think it was the goal of equal opportunity for all, or nationalist authoritarianism, that was the cause of so much tragedy?

by Guest Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:10 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Didge wrote:

Absolutely from a collective view point. As it was about the country and nation as a whole. Its why in Stalinist Russia, ethnic minorities suffered more than Russians. The Ukranians, Belarusians Coassacks, Poles etc suffered under Stalin. Stalin and Mao created the polices from a belief of doing a greater good for the nation and had little care millions died. They were certainly doing so from a position of powwer, but also a belief of Marxist ideals.

Pol Pot was diferent but his bases for such a system came from Maxism, just as Communism did with Mao and Stalin

My point is this. Everytime leftist ideals are to the point of making society equal, comes in the most barbaric forms. The worst example being Pol Pot, when its enforced

So in those cases, do you really think it was the goal of equal opportunity for all, or nationalist authoritarianism, that was the cause of so much tragedy?

Both and at the view at no matter the cost

by Original Quill Sat Jul 28, 2018 6:34 pm

Eilzel wrote:Authoritarianism is a problem for both sides at the extreme. I don't believe the problems is China and the USSR were not leftist and certainly not liberal. They were caused by leftist governments attempting to control the population using that ideology.

I don't reject categorization absolutely, but I think from time to time we need to rethink the parameters of our categories. The ideas of left/right and liberal/conservative were jelling around the same time in the late 18th-century...some time before the evolution in the real world.

I know you don't want a lengthy disquisition, so I'll try to be brief. Marx's philosophy was two things: strong socialism, which is left; and Hegelian teleological historicism, which is right. The latter point spoke to the structure of the state; the former, the ideals.

When Lenin and Russia came along, they were concerned with the architecture of the state, taking the ideals of socialism for granted. If you were a follower of Marx, and building a state, you were going in an extreme rightward direction. I can't emphasize this enough: the Soviet state was left in ideals, but extreme right in political structure and reality.

When the Menseviks were defeated in the Russian Revolution, the Bolshevik authoritarians fixed in place. By the time WWII came along, the Soviet state and Stalin were at least as rightist as the Nazis and Hitler. It is patently stupid to think of the Soviets and/or Stalin as leftist.

Rather than persisting in beating a long-dead horse, it's better to think in terms of Karl Popper's, The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), Open societies are unlocked, liberal, permissive societies such as the UK and US. Closed societies are the restrictive and authoritarian societies such as the Soviet state and Nazi Germany.

It drives me nutz seeing you guys wasting time on assumptions of Stalin = left; Hitler = right. Both were dictators, and their nations were authoritarian.

by Guest Sat Jul 28, 2018 6:45 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Authoritarianism is a problem for both sides at the extreme. I don't believe the problems is China and the USSR were not leftist and certainly not liberal. They were caused by leftist governments attempting to control the population using that ideology.

I don't reject categorization absolutely, but I think from time to time we need to rethink the parameters of our categories. The ideas of left/right and liberal/conservative were jelling around the same time in the late 18th-century...some time before the evolution in the real world.

Didge wrote:I knew this was coming

The point is this, you would at some point, when your views are achieved be conservative

I know you don't want a lengthy disquisition, so I'll try to be brief. Marx's philosophy was two things: strong socialism, which is left; and Hegelian teleological historicism, which is right. The latter point spoke to the structure of the state; the former, the ideals.

Didge wrote:His philosophy was racist, that is a fact and also how in every way was adapted, became Auhoritarianism

How do you come to terms with that?

When Lenin and Russia came along, they were concerned with the architecture of the state, taking the ideals of socialism for granted. If you were a follower of Marx, and building a state, you were going in an extreme rightward direction. I can't emphasize this enough: the Soviet state was left in ideals, but extreme right in political structure and reality.

Didge wrote:Seriously?

Lenin was a mass murderer and no better than the Tzars before him.

I have never heard such apoloigist bullshit in all my life to deflect from the fact it was very much marxist ideals that formed the Soviet Union. I mean only Tiommy is an apologist for Nazism when he claims its socialism, but you are even worse here to claim the Soviet Union was based on extreme right wing thinking

Seriously, there is nothing worse than idiots that distort and lie about history as you do

When the Menseviks were defeated in the Russian Revolution, the Bolshevik authoritarians fixed in place. By the time WWII came along, the Soviet state and Stalin were at least as rightist as the Nazis and Hitler. It is patently stupid to think of the Soviets and/or Stalin as leftist.

Rather than persisting in beating a long-dead horse, it's better to think in terms of Karl Popper's, The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), Open societies are unlocked, liberal, permissive societies such as the UK and US. Closed societies are the restrictive and authoritarian societies such as the Soviet state and Nazi Germany.

Didge wrote:And yet the only way strue socialist nations have functioned is when they forced this onto society

It drives me nutz seeing you guys wasting time on assumptions of Stalin = left; Hitler = right. Both were dictators, and their nations were authoritarian.

It drives me nuts how you invent history

by Original Quill Sat Jul 28, 2018 6:58 pm

Well, since you bring it up, I've got a lot more education in history than you, flea-flicker. I've actually studied and taught this stuff.

by Guest Sat Jul 28, 2018 7:03 pm

Original Quill wrote:Well, since you bring it up, I've got a lot more education in history than you, flea-flicker. I've actually studied and taught this stuff.

I very much doubt it mate

I have a masters, what do you have?

Hearsay?

So lets test this

One thing Trump and Marx have in common is their racist views on Mexicans

Did you know that?

Of course not.

You exclude the racism of your heroes

Here is what Marx said.

“Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?”

I mean surely you can relate to the same racial hate here Quill?

I have lots more to offer in regards to Marx's this racist hero of yours.

Wanna try me?

by Original Quill Sat Jul 28, 2018 7:10 pm

Here's a better test: Who was Hegel? Define Hegelianism, and explain how Marx shaped dialectical materialism by 'turning Hegel on his head'.

by Guest Sat Jul 28, 2018 7:15 pm

Original Quill wrote:Here's a better test: Who was Hegel? Define Hegelianism, and explain how Marx shaped dialectical materialism by 'turning Hegel on his head'.

Ahhh how to side step Marx's racism

To now ask me about Philosophers.

lol

How is that about history?

What is even more funny here is why you are not even applying Hegel, metaphysicical philosophy here?

He based his beliefs on experince and we have experince on hate with Marx's and Trump on Mexicans.

If Marx's was alive today, he would love trump

That is a fact

by Andy Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:48 pm

Irrelevant.
I have the biggest cock of everyone.
When it comes to Willy waving, I have a behemoth.

by Original Quill Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:50 pm

Didge wrote:To now ask me about Philosophers.

Precisely. We weren't talking about incidental ethnicity. We were talking about the meanings of philosophical concepts: left/right; marxism; and liberal vs. conservative. That's where we started.

So why not stay on topic? Why not iron out what it means to call a state "marxist"? Is it left? Is it right? You can't get anywhere if you don't know what you are talking about.

Marxist principles were built upon the Hegelian system. So, how does it relate? What is Hegelian about Marx's theories? What did Marx mean by 'dialectical materialism'? How does Marxism differ from common socialism? Ergo: what does a Marxist state mean?

If you are going to talk about these things, might as well dig in and learn what you're talking about.

by Original Quill Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:55 pm

If you don't want to get into heavy discussions about philosophy, stop using philosophical terms that you know nothing about.

I could write shorter posts, if you'd like. You just have to trust me, and take my word for it: the Soviet state and the Nazi state were both extreme right-wing political systems.

OK? There now, move on.

by Guest Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:57 pm

[quote="Original Quill"]

Didge wrote:To now ask me about Philosophers.

Precisely. We weren't talking about incidental ethnicity. We were talking about the meanings of philosophical concepts: left/right; marxism; and liberal vs. conservative. That's where we started.

Didge wrote:Which wouild exclude Karl Marx. You do realise that?

So why not stay on topic? Why not iron out what it means to call a state "marxist"? Is it left? Is it right? You can't get anywhere if you don't know what you are talking about.

Didge wrote:Yopu went off topic..

You ask me is it left

Yes

Marxist principles were built upon the Hegelian system. So, how does it relate? What is Hegelian about Marx's theories? What did Marx mean b

Didge wrote:Bullshit

That is your opinion and ignoring he waas emphatically as racist as Trump?

If you are going to talk about these things, might as well dig in and learn what you're talking about.

How about you actujally learn some real history mate

by Original Quill Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:12 pm

It's not "history", didge. It's the concept of history in a philosophical system: teleological historicism.

Merriam-Webster wrote:Definition of 'teleological'
: exhibiting or relating to design or purpose especially in nature

Merriam-Webster wrote:Definition of 'historicism'
: a theory, doctrine, or style that emphasizes the importance of history: such as
a : a theory in which history is seen as a standard of value or as a determinant of events
b : a style (as in architecture) characterized by the use of traditional forms and elements

It's not the recounting of dates and events, but a specific theory utilizing the concept of history in a system.

Now, in what way did Hegel use history in his philosophical system?

How did Marx alter that system and work it into a concept of socialism?

Why did the Soviet system become a rightist, authoritarian system of government?

You are talking about these things. So go ahead and explain what you mean. Otherwise, admit that you are just talking about cliches, buzzwords and back porch bromides you learned from beer buddies.

by Guest Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:16 pm

Original Quill wrote:It's not "history", didge. It's the concept of history in a philosophical system: teleological historicism.

Merriam-Webster wrote:Definition of 'teleological'
: exhibiting or relating to design or purpose especially in nature

Merriam-Webster wrote:Definition of 'historicism'
: a theory, doctrine, or style that emphasizes the importance of history: such as
a : a theory in which history is seen as a standard of value or as a determinant of events
b : a style (as in architecture) characterized by the use of traditional forms and elements

It's not the recounting of dates and events, but a specific theory utilizing the concept of history in a system.

Now, in what way did Hegel use history in his philosophical system"

How did Marx alter that system and work it into a concept of socialism?

Why did the Soviet system become a rightist, authoritarian system of government?

You are talking about these things. So go ahead and explain what you mean. Otherwise, admit that you are just talking about cliches, buzzwords and back porch bromides you learned from beer buddies.

You do uinderstand what a concept is Quill?

Marx was racist and hated mexicans

That is a fact

Why are you igniooring that?

Hence all your questions are moot

I love how you seem to dictate on history andnot even know the history of Marx

That would be a start mate

CCome and join my class when you are up to speed here

by Original Quill Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:24 pm

You ask me what is a concept. And then switch to a fact? That suggests to me that you don't know what a concept or a fact is.

Where did you get this ridiculous topic about Mexicans? We were talking about political systems, and how the Marxist Soviet state became rightist. All of a sudden your talking about Mexicans and playing the maracas. Get serious and stop deflecting.

Or...maybe you are in the deep water and can't swim???

by Guest Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:29 pm

Original Quill wrote:You ask me what is a concept. And then switch to a fact? That suggests to me that you don't know what a concept or a fact is.

Where did you get this ridiculous topic about Mexicans? We were talking about political systems, and how the Marxist Soviet state became rightist. All of a sudden your talking about Mexicans and playing the maracas. Get serious and stop deflecting.

Or...maybe you are in the deep water and can't swim???

From your hero

Marx

by Original Quill Sun Jul 29, 2018 12:23 am

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:You ask me what is a concept. And then switch to a fact? That suggests to me that you don't know what a concept or a fact is.

Where did you get this ridiculous topic about Mexicans? We were talking about political systems, and how the Marxist Soviet state became rightist. All of a sudden your talking about Mexicans and playing the maracas. Get serious and stop deflecting.

Or...maybe you are in the deep water and can't swim???

From your hero

Marx

So you admit that Mexicans are irrelevant to this discussion. You just picked any chapter in Marx's biography, and picked a word. I mean, I don't care how he felt about Mexicans, or Chinese food for that matter...it's off-topic.

Didge, you've got to follow a discussion in a linear way, or your posts become scatterbrained. I mean...what do Mexicans have to do with the political system of Soviet Russia or Stalin?

Loony-tunes. Rolling Eyes

Ty for the green, btw. That was nice of you.

by Guest Sun Jul 29, 2018 3:43 am

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

From your hero

Marx

So you admit that Mexicans are irrelevant to this discussion. You just picked any chapter in Marx's biography, and picked a word. I mean, I don't care how he felt about Mexicans, or Chinese food for that matter...it's off-topic.

Didge, you've got to follow a discussion in a linear way, or your posts become scatterbrained. I mean...what do Mexicans have to do with the political system of Soviet Russia or Stalin?

Loony-tunes.

Ty for the green, btw. That was nice of you.

I admit that when ever I pull you up on things you struggle with, you prove just as you do here, your lack of historical knowledge

I just think its hilarious how the left continual argue about people in history and when their own heroes are exposed as nothing more than racist./ The left, as you do here, come out with poor excuses

by Original Quill Sun Jul 29, 2018 5:46 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

So you admit that Mexicans are irrelevant to this discussion. You just picked any chapter in Marx's biography, and picked a word. I mean, I don't care how he felt about Mexicans, or Chinese food for that matter...it's off-topic.

Didge, you've got to follow a discussion in a linear way, or your posts become scatterbrained. I mean...what do Mexicans have to do with the political system of Soviet Russia or Stalin?

Loony-tunes.

Ty for the green, btw. That was nice of you.

I admit that when ever I pull you up on things you struggle with, you prove just as you do here, your lack of historical knowledge

I just think its hilarious how the left continual argue about people in history and when their own heroes are exposed as nothing more than racist./ The left, as you do here, come out with poor excuses

Now you're grasping at straws in order to look good and come out of this debate with your toupee on straight. Lol.

It's not an historical argument, my friend. It's a definitional argument. It's quite telling that you don't even know the difference. Even though Marx wrote in the 18th-century, his books are still on the library shelf and can be read for use today.

You and others keep referring to Soviet Russia and Stalin as liberal and leftist. Yet the reality of what Stalin did and created can only fit the definition of a RW, closed political system. You fail to recognize that Marx's writings have Hegelian origins, and Hegel is as RW as they get. Some even argue he was the father of Hitler.

You (and others) have a facile, western understanding of Marxism. You believe that it is somehow some liberal, LW idea. Even if that were true, you fail to understand that Bolshevism won the Soviet Russian Revolution. The last vestiges of real Marxism died with Trotsky.

You're like a bad karaoke singer, yodeling off-key. Wink

by Guest Sun Jul 29, 2018 5:53 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

I admit that when ever I pull you up on things you struggle with, you prove just as you do here, your lack of historical knowledge

I just think its hilarious how the left continual argue about people in history and when their own heroes are exposed as nothing more than racist./ The left, as you do here, come out with poor excuses

Now you're grasping at straws in order to look good and come out of this debate with your toupee on straight. Lol.

It's not an historical argument, my friend. It's a definitional argument. It's quite telling that you don't even know the difference. Even though Marx wrote in the 18th-century, his books are still on the library shelf and can be read for use today.

You and others keep referring to Soviet Russia and Stalin as liberal and leftist. Yet the reality of what Stalin did and created can only fit the definition of a RW, closed political system. You fail to recognize that Marx's writings have Hegelian origins, and Hegel is as RW as they get. Some even argue he was the father of Hitler.

You (and others) have a facile, western understanding of Marxism. You believe that it is somehow some liberal, LW idea. Even if that were true, you fail to understand that Bolshevism won the Soviet Russian Revolution. The last vestiges of real Marxism died with Trotsky.

You're like a bad karaoke singer, yodeling off-key.

Hilarious apologist bullshit, I have to say. Again ignoring the blatant fact that Stalinist Communism is based on Marxist principles. Only only a left wing apologist would deny this. Even more so ignoring the blatant fact, that Marx was emphatically racist. Its what the left do all the time, when their beliefs system, are shown to be inherantly flawed.

So I will continue to laugh at your poor excuses and like I say if Marx was alive today, he would be appluading the racist views of Trump on Mexicans, because Marx hated Mexicans

That is a fact and something you need to come to terms with

Good luck with that

Laughing

by Original Quill Sun Jul 29, 2018 6:46 pm

Didge wrote:Again ignoring the blatant fact that Stalinist Communism is based on Marxist principles.

OK. Now you are in the right tennis court. You're addressing definitions and principles.

Do you want to go ahead and argue your case? Because...

Didge wrote:Only only a left wing apologist would deny this.

...is not an argument, but a label. Adjectives are not arguments. Assertions, with our support, are for the weak-minded.

Now that you're in the right court, let's go to Marx's writings and debate the point.

by Guest Sun Jul 29, 2018 6:52 pm

Actually Quill its you trying ever so badly to deflect from the facts here

Its again hilarious to watch buddy

Laughing

by Original Quill Sun Jul 29, 2018 6:57 pm

Didge wrote:Actually Quill its you trying ever so badly to deflect from the facts here

Its again hilarious to watch buddy

Off-point. You've lost the plot, lad.

But I'm patient. I'll await your dissertation on Marxist principles in future posts.

Laughing

by Guest Sun Jul 29, 2018 6:59 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Actually Quill its you trying ever so badly to deflect from the facts here

Its again hilarious to watch buddy

Off-point. You've lost the plot, lad.

But I'm patient. I'll await your dissertation on Marxist principles in future posts.

Is that why you continue to struggle to conden Marx for his racist views?

Or how every communist party is born from the very principles of Marx??

Laughing

by Original Quill Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:28 pm

Communism has been around since the Greeks, perhaps before. Communism is a noun derived from the word community. So all cultures that honor the communal aspects of their life are expressing a form of communism.

Economic communities (there's that word again) that band together to amass the capital to afford industrial tooling and factories, are called socialist. The necessary capital comes from some social group, whether a guild, council or a government.

Communism, beyond socialism, is a system that is based upon the belief that some force is driving society toward a natural bonding...an evolution of a society without need of a government or ownership: "...to each according to need; from each according to ability". You can see the metaphysical aspect in this unseen force...almost like a religion.

That metaphysical idea of a force comes from Hegel, who concocted a theory of teleological historism to claim the existence of a 'coming force' he called geist (roughly, 'ghost'). He even described the 3-stages: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Marx adopted and co-opted this idea to say that socialism is coming in a like way, and a natural order will descend on us to where we will need no government, no police, no managerial or capitalist control. I like to think of it as a pink cloud descending on society...the theory has all the qualities of a fantasy, or religion (if you think I'm a Marxist, you are waaay off base).

The issue, like religion, becomes, how does it work and where does Soviet Russia come from(?). Marx spoke of a transition where a few elites would serve as catalysts for the new world order. These elites in Russia formed the Bolshevik Party, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and, like the second coming of Christ, they settled in and awaited the pink cloud to descend (there’s much more at this point, but let’s get back to our discussion).

Only, the second coming didn't come. In the meantime, the CPSU continued to rule and individuals began to gain status and rank. By the time Stalin came along the Soviet Union was a full dictatorship, with all the ranks and privileges of Adolph Hitler.

So you can see, the Russian Soviets went awry, and neither Marxism nor communism came near to ever existing in the Soviet Union. It went off course. It became a RW totalitarian dictatorship. It was the mirror image of Germany and Italy in the 1930's.

by Guest Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:58 pm

Original Quill wrote:Communism has been around since the Greeks, perhaps before. Communism is a noun derived from the word community. So all cultures that honor the communal aspects of their life are expressing a form of communism.
Didge wrote: You know when someone is desperate, to deflect. Is when they reinvent history.

Show me one Greek Philopsopher that backed communist prinicples? I seriously get bored with the left when they lie
Economic communities (there's that word again) that band together to amass the capital to afford industrial tooling and factories, are called socialist. The necessary capital comes from some social group, whether a guild, council or a government.
Didge wrote: Well that is an interesting point being as the Athenians, Spartans and Boetians enslaved those they conquered. So how the fuck can you instill a view of Greek Philosophy here?

Seriously?

Communism, beyond socialism, is a system that is based upon the belief that some force is driving society toward a natural bonding...an evolution of a society without need of a government or ownership: "...to each according to need; from each according to ability". You can see the metaphysical aspect in this unseen force...almost like a religion.

Didge wrote: I really cannot stop lauging at such apologist bullshit going

Its fucking hilarious you see no wrong with socialism and yet the reality is, it needs Totalitarianism to worki

That metaphysical idea of a force comes from Hegel, who concocted a theory of teleological historism to claim the existence of a 'coming force' he called geist (roughly, 'ghost'). He even described the 3-stages: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Marx adopted and co-opted this idea to say that socialism is coming in a like way, and a natural order will descend on us to where we will need no government, no police, no managerial or capitalist control. I like to think of it as a pink cloud descending on society...the theory has all the qualities of a fantasy, or religion (if you think I'm a Marxist, you are waaay off base).

Didge wrote: Hoqw many times are you going to actually insult Marx, by refering to Hengle, as if they are the same, seriously? Marx was to paint a better pitcure no better than Trump and you do not want to recognise that. You sadly see a racist as a hero. It would be like a Jew seeing Hitler as his saviour

The issue, like religion, becomes, how does it work and where does Soviet Russia come from(?). Marx spoke of a transition where a few elites would serve as catalysts for the new world order. These elites in Russia formed the Bolshevik Party, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and, like the second coming of Christ, they settled in and awaited the pink cloud to descend (there’s much more at this point, but let’s get back to our discussion).
Didge wrote: I love this bullshit, ignoring the fact Marx was racist and back such an elitist system. It proves you have not read history or read his views. It proves you are no better than Trump and a fifth column/quote]

Didge wrote:I am sorry, but your revicisionist history is never going to hold sway here

You are a traitor and a communist and would be better placed at the end of a rope...

Yeah I am joking, but the bullshit you come out with Quill is hilarious. You distort history badly and ignore the views of Marxs and history itself. You make it up as you go along

His views founded Communism

That is a fact and how the left do not want to recognize that

by Vintage Sun Jul 29, 2018 10:20 pm

What are you if you are left on some issues and right on others? I don't really understand someone one having a definate left or right leaning on anything without thinking about it, just because, surely that's practically impossible. Shouldn't you actually think about the issues and the possible outcomes and then decide if the issue is left or right?

by Guest Sun Jul 29, 2018 10:23 pm

Vintage wrote:What are you if you are left on some issues and right on others? I don't really understand someone one having a definate left or right leaning on anything without thinking about it, just because, surely that's practically impossible. Shouldn't you actually think about the issues and the possible outcomes and then decide if the issue is left or right?

+1

For throwing a spanner in the works

by Original Quill Sun Jul 29, 2018 10:28 pm

Haha...don't you even know how to operate the board? Or do you just want to see your words in quotes?

Very sad. You don't know the difference between history and philosophy...perhaps because philosophy requires linear reasoning, not a baseball card collection of quips.

Well, I've fulfilled my point...ta!

by Guest Sun Jul 29, 2018 10:31 pm

Original Quill wrote:Haha...don't you even know how to operate the board? Or do you just want to see your words in quotes?

Very sad. You don't know the difference between history and philosophy...perhaps because philosophy requires linear reasoning, not a baseball card collection of quips.

Well, I've fulfilled my point...ta!

Actually I do Quill, hence why you distort history

Hence why I easily dismissed your views on the Greeks and you never challenged this?

I know one thing, I can take you to the cleaners any day on history.... Laughing

by Vintage Sun Jul 29, 2018 10:43 pm

Life is not black and white is it, it would be great if it was, soo much easier. You wouldn't really have to bother with thinking about issues at all, (you may as well be a robot, if it was so) and everything you currently believed woul be set in stone. Life has many prespectives, this is what makes it so difficult, you think you have it worked out from your political perspective/religious dogma/concience, then something comes along to shift that perspective and there you are wrestling with your political perspective/religious dogma/concience and the world changes.
Why are you worrying about Greeks, as amazing as they may have been in many things, they actually wondered if half the human race actually had souls, how fundamenatly flawed is that.

by Sponsored content