Total Posts:129|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A Critical Look at the Fourth of July

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2011 4:50:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The American Revolution, a Democratic Struggle or a Bourgeois Insurrection?

Well, the ole Fourth of July is coming up, and it's of course another holiday that serves as a special occasion to give the hoodwinkable hoi polloi, the manipulable multitudes, the mass media-programmed populace another dose and booster shot of indoctrination with our society's conventional version and view of history. This is of course a part of a larger strategy that all societies practice to preserve their socioeconomic power structure, i.e. the promotion of a worldview that accommodates and rationalizes and justifies it. Yep, every power structure needs to imprint the mind of the common man with the uncritical belief that it's legitimate and natural, not even to be questioned let alone challenged.

Now then, in our "democratic" and non-authoritarian society this strategy of ideologically inoculating the people against dissent and subversion, and in favor of resigned, apathetic acceptance of the powers that be, this strategy of collective socio-cultural brainwashing is quite decentralized and subtle. That is, it doesn't take the form of overt propaganda churned out from some central ministry of misinformation. No, instead it takes the seemingly more benign form of the power structure's take on reality constantly being fed into our unsuspecting brains by everything from the news media to the popular entertainment industry to our public schools, and yes, even our public holidays, such as the nation's birthday, the Fourth.

Yes, the conventional, consensus version of that little episode in American history called the War of Independence and the birth of the nation is really just ideology, just a revision of historical reality designed to affirm and support the legitimacy of our system of society and its politico-economic pecking order. So then, the obvious question that puts itself here is what about the facts and truth of this country's "revolution", what pray tell might those facts and truth be?

First of all, from a critical perspective, from a "hermeneutics of suspicion" point of view, the reality of America's struggle to separate from Great Britain had little at all to do with the yearning of the man on the street to be free! Sure, it's always possible to persuade the man on the street that the yearnings, goals, and interests at stake are his own, and thereby motivate him to fight and bleed in the wars of the ruling elite, but come now, how often are the goals and interests of the man on the street really & truly what our wars are fought for?

Alas no, the American Revolutionary War was no noble exception to the realpolitik and realeconomik rule that wars are virtually always fought to benefit the elite members of society – a rule that of course we find to still be very much in effect today in the case of this country's corporate greed-driven wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Quite simply, this nation's much idealized and mythologized "Founding Fathers" launched their people into a war, a bloody conflict with their mother country to cut the royal apron strings and set themselves up as the highest political echelon of American society.

They, the George Wahingtons and Thomas Jeffersons and John Adamses of the thirteen colonies were of course already the upper crust and establishment of the land, but in the larger context of the British Empire they were a second-tier upper crust functioning as vassals of the Crown and kowtowing to the likes of ole King George III. Well, they felt that their britches were plenty bigger than this, and they wished to grow into them. In other words, they dreamt the dream of being the real power in their own independent country, and set about making this self-aggrandizing dream come true.

As for their vaunted democratic ideals, you know, the ideals that they claimed to be fighting for, well, every movement needs its ideals to inspire its followers, doesn't it? The philosophy of democracy was merely in the right place at the right time, as it were. That is, democracy was the avant-garde zeitgeist and political gospel coming out of the French Enlightenment, and all the OGs of the American Revolution were of course educated men who had imbibed some of its shibboleths and slogans. It was only natural then that they would drape the revolutionary mantle of democracy over the underlying self-interest driving their insurrectionary movement for independence.

To put it bluntly, democracy became the lofty and glorious vehicle for the selfish political ambitions of the big names of the Revolution. The same thing would later happen in the case of the French Revolution. There the new, on-the-rise bourgeois class would use the popular spirit of democracy and revolution to overthrow the ancien régime, i.e. the rule of the old-line aristocracy, and to install themselves as the new establishment.

Mm-hmm, America's own bourgeoisie, consisting of the provincial leaders who administered the colonies' governmental and economic structure on behalf of the imperial British bureaucracy wanted to come into their own every bit as much as their French counterparts. And, just like their French counterparts would later do in the Revolution of 1789, the colonial American business & burgher class realized that the rallying cry of representative government was their ticket – a ticket they could use to ride their way to ascendency in the political and economic life of their society.

These businessmen and burghers, plantation owners and lawyers, who pushed for American independence were certainly not idealists with an authentic and deep faith in the common man and in egalitarian democracy. Rather, they were of an elitist and worldly-wise salon set who looked down their upturned noses on the lower orders, who considered the masses to be as*es, that sort of thing. They actually never intended to create a form of body politic in which there would be much direct and true democracy, for they held to the classist view that they were "the best people", best qualified to run the public's affairs. We the people, on the other hand, were regarded to be decidedly unfit to manage political matters on our own, i.e. we supposedly require the benevolent direction of a dominant gentry.

In point of radically but reliably revisionist historical fact, when the former leaders of the Revolution colluded together in Philadelphia in 1787 to design their now independent country's system of government, the structure they devised was one that was consciously meant to have only enough real-deal democracy built into it to prevent any individual or faction from erecting a dictatorship that would edge the rest of the power elite out of power. However, the founders of the American nation were quite keen to not take democracy so far as to enfranchise ordinary laboring and unpropertied people. The idea was not to create a society in which the rank & file citizenry would genuinely govern themselves, but rather to construct a patricianly order and polity in which the gentleman class, men of property and wealth, would be guaranteed a permanent firm hold on the reins of real power.

This was always the vision for their society harbored by the likes of establishmentarians such as Hamilton, Madison, and Morris. A vision that they actualized and codified in the United States Constitution, a document that enshrined a republic of the higher bourgeoisie, of the moneyed noblesse who would be the custodians of governmental power and play shepherd to the sheep-like plebeians. And, oh yeah, I seem to recall that the new sociopolitical order constituted by the Constitution accommodated the evil institution of slavery, another teeny factoid that rudely flies in the face of democracy and the naïve image of the Revolution's ringleaders as "freedom fighters".

The conclusion is located directly below
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2011 4:51:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Conclusion

Sorry then, but securing the liberty of all the people was hardly the true and driving motive of the American Revolutionary War. It was more of an instinctive motivational maneuver to galvanize popular support than a genuine motive. Sadly, the myth reconsecrated and reinforced every Fourth of July, the myth of enlightened exponents and progressive paladins of democracy taking up the noble crusade for the rights and freedom of man is just that, a venerable mythic motif.

Certainly, just as with theological fables, our public holidays perform the function of hallowing and imparting the lore of this nation's "civil religion", of the belief system that acculturates Americans to their national identity, and to a patriotic acceptance of the underlyingly plutocratic politico-economic hierarchy of their society. This country's Independence Day is of course the secular High Holy Day on the U.S. calendar, the mother of all three day weekends for ritually-festively observing the romanticized, storied, mythopoetic narrative of American history and politics.

The unworthy-of-legend truth of the American Revolution, however, is that it was little more than a bourgeois power play whose political-historical legacy has been the structural, if unofficial, sovereignty not of the people, but of men of commerce and finance and capital. Not a bona fide democracy, but a "benevolent" dictatorship of the capitalist plutotariat, this is the sham system that the main characters of our society's creation story have saddled us with, what quaint old Ben Franklin, valiant Georgie Porgie Washington, and the sage of Monticello, and company, have deformed the beautiful ideal of self-government into.

When we observe the Fourth of July, in our own small way we perpetuate a gullible faith in the mythic big lie that the heroes of the Revolution did something more than establish a constitutional businessocracy, that they were heaven-sent patriarchs of the land of the free and the home of the brave, bestowing the blessings of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people". Until we cease to cooperate with such smarmy historical flimflam, until we begin to choose hard facts over pious fictions, until we stoutly reject the sanctified premises of our catechistic holidays, we'll remain deeply and vulnerably stuck in the undemocratic cycles set in motion by the founding frauds of our system, undemocratic cycles of being manipulated, screwed, and increasingly peonized by a ruling class that officially doesn't exist.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2011 4:54:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I know, most of you-all are probably balking at everything that I have to say in this post, what's new?! But hey, at least it's topical.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2011 6:02:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Oops, yes, it's a longish post again! Well, it's not as though I've really done that before, right?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2011 6:05:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Oh yeah, my apologies in advance if I offend anyone's patriotic sensibilities, but then again I consider patriotism-nationalism to be a form of ontologically and ethically benighted false consciousness.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2011 6:14:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
For someone who doesn't appear to consult any outside sources, you sure know a lot about the mindsets and motivation of people who lived well over two hundred years ago.

Sure, Adams was almost a monarchist, but really, what makes you qualified to judge people of the past? How do you distinguish sincere statements from lofty rhetoric?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2011 6:18:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The US isn't SUPPOSED to be some kind of democratic communist fairyland. It's supposed to be a republic, and one that respects property rights. The "Big lie" you're b****ing about is a straw man.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 1:02:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/29/2011 6:14:34 PM, mongeese wrote:
For someone who doesn't appear to consult any outside sources, you sure know a lot about the mindsets and motivation of people who lived well over two hundred years ago.

Sure, Adams was almost a monarchist, but really, what makes you qualified to judge people of the past? How do you distinguish sincere statements from lofty rhetoric?

The "Founding Fathers" were highly literate men, they wrote down their thoughts, in everything from personal correspondence to private journals to published pieces of writing, ergo one doesn't have to be a mind reader channeling their thoughts through the ether of time to have a good idea of the kind of mentality they were operating from.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 1:56:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 1:02:05 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/29/2011 6:14:34 PM, mongeese wrote:
For someone who doesn't appear to consult any outside sources, you sure know a lot about the mindsets and motivation of people who lived well over two hundred years ago.

Sure, Adams was almost a monarchist, but really, what makes you qualified to judge people of the past? How do you distinguish sincere statements from lofty rhetoric?

The "Founding Fathers" were highly literate men, they wrote down their thoughts, in everything from personal correspondence to private journals to published pieces of writing, ergo one doesn't have to be a mind reader channeling their thoughts through the ether of time to have a good idea of the kind of mentality they were operating from.

Those would be the "outside sources" that you actually forgot to cite. If they make things as obvious as you seem to indicate, then posting them would give great power to your arguments.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 2:08:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/29/2011 6:18:26 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The US isn't SUPPOSED to be some kind of democratic communist fairyland. It's supposed to be a republic, and one that respects property rights. The "Big lie" you're b****ing about is a straw man.

It's interesting and perhaps telling that you lump "democratic" in with the "communist fairyland" that you think those of us on the left spend our days romantically woolgathering about. Hmm, does this perhaps mean that you consider democracy, the dream of authentically actualizing democratic principles, to be merely more quixotic left-wing lunacy? Does it perhaps even mean that you equate democracy with your notion of communism? And would it be unreasonable to infer that your equating of democracy and communism, along with the derisive tone of the phrase "democratic communist fairyland" indicates that you not only don't believe in communism, but that you don't even believe in democracy?

One might then also wonder what specifically about democracy it is that you don't believe in, that causes you to contemptuously dismiss it along with communism as utopian "fairyland" twaddle? Could it perhaps be the egalitarian spirit that democracy is infused with? Could it be that your rightist idea of "freedom" is the ferally dog-eat-dog freedom of egoistic individualists to pursue superior social status and socioeconomic dominion over their fellows? Could it be that you have the same problem and annoyance with both democracy and communism, i.e. that they both would put a crimp in the ability of the alpha capitalists you identify with and idolize to attain and exercise dominance?

At any rate, it's absolutely clear that for you and those who share your right-libertarian mind-set the thought of a genuine and equality-guaranteeing democracy is not at all appealing, to say the least! Well, your distinction between a democracy and a republic that "respects property rights", would certainly seem to suggest that you're much more averse to the prospect of a bona fide, non-hierarchical, pantisocratic people's republic than you would be to an all-out affluentocratic republic of alpha businessmen, lording their economic power over the rest of us.

Ha!, if this is indeed where you're attitudinally and ideologically coming from, well then, it's hardly surprising that the reality of America's "Founding Fathers" being elitists who waged war not for democracy but for their own self-aggrandizement is not in the slightest disconcerting to you, and that you once again find yourself getting mildly miffed with my critique of alpha owners and the form of society they've engineered for us. Yep, my trenchant thoughts on these subjects have once again succeeded in piquing your own semiconscious alpha mentality, which only goes to provide a bit more confirmation for my fundamental analysis of rightist psychology!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 2:51:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You're getting all that from one sentence? Don't you think you're overanalyzing a bit?

I'm pretty sure Ragnar opposes democracy as a tyranny of the majority, and would rather the government not tell him what he can and cannot do with his own property.

I'm still waiting for those sources that you need to support your initial argument.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 3:10:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 2:08:09 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/29/2011 6:18:26 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The US isn't SUPPOSED to be some kind of democratic communist fairyland. It's supposed to be a republic, and one that respects property rights. The "Big lie" you're b****ing about is a straw man.

It's interesting and perhaps telling that you lump "democratic" in with the "communist fairyland" that you think those of us on the left spend our days romantically woolgathering about. Hmm, does this perhaps mean that you consider democracy, the dream of authentically actualizing democratic principles, to be merely more quixotic left-wing lunacy?
Yes.

Does it perhaps even mean that you equate democracy with your notion of communism?
Communism and democracy follow from the same premise-- that human beings are interchangeable, mere units of a collective, like a worker ant.

And would it be unreasonable to infer that your equating of democracy and communism, along with the derisive tone of the phrase "democratic communist fairyland" indicates that you not only don't believe in communism, but that you don't even believe in democracy?
As noted above, I'm against democracy.

Could it be that your rightist idea of "freedom" is the ferally dog-eat-dog freedom of egoistic individualists to pursue superior social status and socioeconomic dominion over their fellows?
It's the freedom of individuals to not be slaughtered by lottery and have their scraps distributed amongst a pack of dogs. "Dog-eat-dog" is an accurate depiction of egalitarianism, not its opposite.

would certainly seem to suggest that you're much more averse to the prospect of a bona fide, non-hierarchical, pantisocratic people's republic
Was that self-consciously done? cause it was pretty funny ^_^.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 3:56:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 2:51:18 PM, mongeese wrote:
You're getting all that from one sentence? Don't you think you're overanalyzing a bit?

I'm pretty sure Ragnar opposes democracy as a tyranny of the majority, and would rather the government not tell him what he can and cannot do with his own property.

I'm still waiting for those sources that you need to support your initial argument.

You're just giving me Ragnar's more legitimate-and-lofty-sounding-from-a-libertarian-point-of-view rationalization for his egoistic alpha mentality.

Now then, as for sources, you'd like some, would you? Okay, view the YouTube video above and click on this link if you're interested in listening to the rest of the lecture series that this quite edifying video clip is taken from, http://www.tucradio.org...

Also, read this book (Democracy For the Few) by the same political scientist and historian, Michael Parenti, http://www.michaelparenti.org...

Next, try reading Gore Vidal's book Inventing a Nation, here's a link to an interview in which Vidal discusses the crafty crafting of the American Constitution and republic, http://www.npr.org...

Then give Richard Hofstadter's work, The American Political Tradition a read, here's a link for a synopsis, http://en.wikipedia.org...

And you can peruse this essay I stumbled upon that provides some sources, http://reviewessays.com...

I hope that you'll find these sources to be adequate, but no doubt you won't. Nonetheless, you should find these audio and video clips, books and essays, to be quite educational, if you're interested, that is.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 4:03:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You're just giving me Ragnar's more legitimate-and-lofty-sounding-from-a-libertarian-point-of-view rationalization for his egoistic alpha mentality.
And you presumably just give us your more tl-and-dr-sounding-from-a-communist-point-of-view rationalization for your altruistic victim mentality?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 4:16:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 3:56:05 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/30/2011 2:51:18 PM, mongeese wrote:
You're getting all that from one sentence? Don't you think you're overanalyzing a bit?

I'm pretty sure Ragnar opposes democracy as a tyranny of the majority, and would rather the government not tell him what he can and cannot do with his own property.

I'm still waiting for those sources that you need to support your initial argument.

You're just giving me Ragnar's more legitimate-and-lofty-sounding-from-a-libertarian-point-of-view rationalization for his egoistic alpha mentality.

Now then, as for sources, you'd like some, would you? Okay, view the YouTube video above and click on this link if you're interested in listening to the rest of the lecture series that this quite edifying video clip is taken from, http://www.tucradio.org...

Also, read this book (Democracy For the Few) by the same political scientist and historian, Michael Parenti, http://www.michaelparenti.org...

Next, try reading Gore Vidal's book Inventing a Nation, here's a link to an interview in which Vidal discusses the crafty crafting of the American Constitution and republic, http://www.npr.org...

Then give Richard Hofstadter's work, The American Political Tradition a read, here's a link for a synopsis, http://en.wikipedia.org...

And you can peruse this essay I stumbled upon that provides some sources, http://reviewessays.com...

I hope that you'll find these sources to be adequate, but no doubt you won't. Nonetheless, you should find these audio and video clips, books and essays, to be quite educational, if you're interested, that is.



Every single source is a self avowed leftist. You have so little understanding of the time and the people. If you think that those fighting in the field, dieing in the field were looking for their fortune you're so wrong. If you think that the ones who were inspiring the revolution were out for money, you are wrong. The ones who wanted the land and money were on the side of the King.

Remember that the world doesn't hate the US, the left hates the US. The left makes everything ugly and dirty, they make it their mission to misrepresent what is true and what is the actual context of the times. You're just wrong on all of your OP at every level. It's too bad it's 99% hyperbole, because it makes it difficult to actually combat with reason and truth.

I said before, if you removed the volume and emotion from your posts it would be far more interesting to respond to.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 5:01:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well, the video was sort of a torture to watch, as the introducer was so slow and people's mouths didn't even seem to match what they were saying, which really bugged me. However, I thought you said that you were looking at exactly what the Founding Fathers were saying. That involves primary sources which you still lack.

Also, I'm not going to go check out books for the sake of verifying or refuting your arguments. Quotes from the Founding Fathers should be avaliable on the internet.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 5:05:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 5:01:30 PM, mongeese wrote:
Well, the video was sort of a torture to watch, as the introducer was so slow and people's mouths didn't even seem to match what they were saying, which really bugged me. However, I thought you said that you were looking at exactly what the Founding Fathers were saying. That involves primary sources which you still lack.

Also, I'm not going to go check out books for the sake of verifying or refuting your arguments. Quotes from the Founding Fathers should be avaliable on the internet.

Sorry, that was me. My mistake.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 5:22:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/29/2011 6:05:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
Oh yeah, my apologies in advance if I offend anyone's patriotic sensibilities, but then again I consider patriotism-nationalism to be a form of ontologically and ethically benighted false consciousness.:

I'm sorry, I couldn't understand you. Could you please take Stalin's cock out of your mouth before you talk? K, thnx :)
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 6:06:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 3:10:37 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/30/2011 2:08:09 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/29/2011 6:18:26 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The US isn't SUPPOSED to be some kind of democratic communist fairyland. It's supposed to be a republic, and one that respects property rights. The "Big lie" you're b****ing about is a straw man.

It's interesting and perhaps telling that you lump "democratic" in with the "communist fairyland" that you think those of us on the left spend our days romantically woolgathering about. Hmm, does this perhaps mean that you consider democracy, the dream of authentically actualizing democratic principles, to be merely more quixotic left-wing lunacy?
Yes.

Mm-hmm, I knew that if you responded honestly you would confirm my inferences. Yes, I was just stating the obvious about you and many of your fellow right-libertarians.

Communism and democracy follow from the same premise-- that human beings are interchangeable, mere units of a collective, like a worker ant.

No, the fundamental ethical, humanistic, and indeed ontological insight that the democratic and communist zeitgeists both emanate from is that of the equal intrinsic sanctity and worth and rights of every human individual. Democracy unfortunately confines this egalitarian insight within the bounds of the political sphere of society, and socialism-communism expands it out into the socioeconomic sphere. But no, recognizing the fundamental moral-spiritual parity & unity of all men and women does not equate to viewing them as "interchangeable" or having a chilling uniqueness-erasing-homogeneity. An egoist such as yourself will of course balkingly impose such a totalistic interpretation on the unitive metaphysics underlying "socialist" equalitarianism, however you're merely projecting your own fears, ideology, and totalistic tendencies. Equality and advocating a social system that affirms equality quite simply does =/= the assimilation of everyone's distinctiveness into some Borg-like collectivity.

As noted above, I'm against democracy.

Yes, duly noted. Sadly but not surprisingly, an anti-democratic libertarian is apparently not at all a contradiction in terms.

Was that self-consciously done? cause it was pretty funny ^_^.

Yes, I know, to someone of your ideological perspective the term "people's republic" conjures mockable images of Red China under Mao and of leftists such as myself spouting rhetoric to justify repression. However, I was using the term in a more literal sense, to describe a form of society in which the people genuinely and jointly run their own political and economic affairs, as opposed to being under the direction and dominance of either government or alpha capitalists. No doubt you still find the term and the concept of a people's society laughable, but that speaks more to your own point of view than to the inherent risibility of the kind of direct political-social-economic democracy that I have in mind.

P.S. Yo, mongeese, you remarked that I read a lot into Ragnar's previous one-sentence reply, but as it turns out he confirms all of my analysis of the implications of that brief sentence.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 6:17:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Communism and democracy follow from the same premise-- that human beings are interchangeable, mere units of a collective, like a worker ant.

No, the fundamental ethical, humanistic, and indeed ontological insight that the democratic and communist zeitgeists both emanate from is that of the equal intrinsic sanctity and worth and rights of every human individual.
Contradictions.

But no, recognizing the fundamental moral-spiritual parity & unity of all men and women does not equate to viewing them as "interchangeable" or having a chilling uniqueness-erasing-homogeneity.
Yes, yes it does. Unity contradicts unique parts. Unity contains homogoneity as one of its components.

"I wish that all humanity had one neck, so that I could cut it" is the sentiment among those collectivists who are smart to the point of the game.

As noted above, I'm against democracy.

Yes, duly noted. Sadly but not surprisingly, an anti-democratic libertarian is apparently not at all a contradiction in terms.
Of course not, it's a democratic libertarian who is. Oh sure, some libertarians might as a practical matter support a system of electoral politics, but to be truly democratic is to view the tyranny of the majority not as some mere inevitability that one has to work one's way around but as a moral imperative.

Was that self-consciously done? cause it was pretty funny ^_^.

Yes, I know, to someone of your ideological perspective the term "people's republic" conjures mockable images of Red China under Mao and of leftists such as myself spouting rhetoric to justify repression. However, I was using the term in a more literal sense, to describe a form of society in which the people genuinely and jointly run their own political and economic affairs
You mean a society run by a mythical entity, for that is what "The people" is.

as opposed to being under the direction and dominance of either government
By definition, whoever "genuinely" runs things, that's the government (Anarchy occurs when no one "genuinely" runs things, rather multiple people compete to do so-- an anarchist views this as somehow a stable arrangement, I view it as something that can only be concretized as war, a transitive state to government).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 6:25:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 5:22:43 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 6/29/2011 6:05:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
Oh yeah, my apologies in advance if I offend anyone's patriotic sensibilities, but then again I consider patriotism-nationalism to be a form of ontologically and ethically benighted false consciousness.:

I'm sorry, I couldn't understand you. Could you please take Stalin's cock out of your mouth before you talk? K, thnx :)

Wow, really sophisticated wit, you must be a rightist of some sort? Hmm? Did you get that line out of that little-known joke book that Adolf Hitler wrote? I'll bet your favorite one is "How many dying communists in a concentration camp does it take to change a light bulb? – None, they'll all be dead soon and won't need any light to read Marx by". Funny stuff, funny like a libertarian who wants us to buy that we'd all be blissfully free in his lousy laissez-faire society in which alpha capitalists are permissively unfettered to feudally lord their economic wealth and clout over the rest of us. Yep, you right-libertarians have some hilarious material in your ideological repertoire.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 7:05:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 4:16:44 PM, innomen wrote:
Every single source is a self avowed leftist. You have so little understanding of the time and the people. If you think that those fighting in the field, dieing in the field were looking for their fortune you're so wrong.

Firstly, does being a leftist ipso facto invalidate a source? Then would I likewise be entitled to consider it invalid for a right-libertarian to reference the ideas and arguments of his ideological gurus? In that case folks here such as J.Kenyon, and mongeese, and yourself perhaps, who are really just channeling Rothbard, von Mises, Hayek, et al, could all be dismissed for merely deriving the legitimacy of their views from other doctrinaire libertarian intellectuals. That is, your dismissiveness of left-leaning scholars can be a sword that slashes both ways.

Secondly, as for the rank & file troops who participated in the Revolutionary War, sure they didn't share the same self-advancing realpolitik agenda as the elite members of colonial society for whom they fought and killed and died. But then that's just about always the case in a nation's wars, now isn't it?! It certainly remains the case today! The fact, for instance, that the low-level military personnel taking part in the corporate greed-driven invasions & occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan don't stand to profit much at all from their criminal complicity in these actions doesn't negate or mitigate the fact that the business-political complex that runs the show initiated said actions for their own selfish economic benefit. Likewise, the fact that the average minuteman didn't have mercenary motives is not an argument against the possibility that the leaders of the Revolution did.

Come on, if you've lived in this world for any amount of time at all, or have read a history book or two, you should know full well that ordinary people can always be induced to go along with and risk life & limb in wars whose real goals only serve the ruling class. But it's not in the naive minds and possibly good hearts of buck privates and lance corporals that we find the real causes and motives of war, it's in the self-seeking minds and hearts of the folks at the top of the politico-economic food chain. Now then, in the British colonies of North America in the late 1700s those folks, the George Wahingtons and John Adamses and Alexander Hamiltons, whether consciously or unconsciously, had their own best interests powering their passion for American independence. You can be willfully naive and doubt this if you like, but in that case I would suggest that you read some of their own writings, in which they make it exceedingly clear that they were no great believers in democracy or the common man, and were actually quite the staunch elitists.

This is all to say that it's by the true motives of the Revolution's leaders that it's to be judged, not by the idealistic rhetoric that they fed to their troops, or the level of sincere belief that the troops had in their leaders' idealistic rhetoric. All the noble rhetoric and beliefs floating around in the heads of the average Revolutionary War soldier is really quite beside the main points of my post.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 7:28:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 6:06:51 PM, charleslb wrote:
P.S. Yo, mongeese, you remarked that I read a lot into Ragnar's previous one-sentence reply, but as it turns out he confirms all of my analysis of the implications of that brief sentence.

Except not. You claimed that he wanted democracy out of the way to achieve domination as an "alpha capitalist." In reality, he just wants government to stop overly regulating his own actions. Honestly, we're being deprived of the right to choose our own lightbulbs; isn't that a little excessive?
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 7:29:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
charles, you're always criticizing modern society and libertarian ideals, but we still aren't quite sure what you are. What would be the structure and ideology of your ideal society? I don't think you've ever made a thread explaining it, and it would make it easier to respond to your criticisms if we knew what your alternative would be.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 9:18:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 7:29:25 PM, mongeese wrote:
charles, you're always criticizing modern society and libertarian ideals, but we still aren't quite sure what you are. What would be the structure and ideology of your ideal society? I don't think you've ever made a thread explaining it, and it would make it easier to respond to your criticisms if we knew what your alternative would be.

his sigg
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 9:35:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 7:29:25 PM, mongeese wrote:
charles, you're always criticizing modern society and libertarian ideals, but we still aren't quite sure what you are. What would be the structure and ideology of your ideal society? I don't think you've ever made a thread explaining it, and it would make it easier to respond to your criticisms if we knew what your alternative would be.

Read, or reread, as the case may be, my previous post on my own form of "libertarianism", http://www.debate.org...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 10:07:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 7:28:02 PM, mongeese wrote:
Except not. You claimed that he wanted democracy out of the way to achieve domination as an "alpha capitalist." In reality, he just wants government to stop overly regulating his own actions...

Well, there's the psychic superstructure of people's intellectual and ideological rationalizations, and then there's the unconsciously foundational attitudes giving rise to their self-justifying philosophy.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 10:25:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 10:07:24 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/30/2011 7:28:02 PM, mongeese wrote:
Except not. You claimed that he wanted democracy out of the way to achieve domination as an "alpha capitalist." In reality, he just wants government to stop overly regulating his own actions...

Well, there's the psychic superstructure of people's intellectual and ideological rationalizations, and then there's the unconsciously foundational attitudes giving rise to their self-justifying philosophy.

That's probably the most concise and thoughtful thing I have ever seen him post.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 10:40:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 10:07:24 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/30/2011 7:28:02 PM, mongeese wrote:
Except not. You claimed that he wanted democracy out of the way to achieve domination as an "alpha capitalist." In reality, he just wants government to stop overly regulating his own actions...

Well, there's the psychic superstructure of people's intellectual and ideological rationalizations, and then there's the unconsciously foundational attitudes giving rise to their self-justifying philosophy.

The thing is, you're assuming the unconscious motivation that fits your agenda with no real proof. You claimed that his post was the proof, but it only demonstrated the "psychic superstructure." It cannot itself be proof for the "foundational attitudes" without some seriously flawed inductive reasoning.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 11:06:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 9:35:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/30/2011 7:29:25 PM, mongeese wrote:
charles, you're always criticizing modern society and libertarian ideals, but we still aren't quite sure what you are. What would be the structure and ideology of your ideal society? I don't think you've ever made a thread explaining it, and it would make it easier to respond to your criticisms if we knew what your alternative would be.

Read, or reread, as the case may be, my previous post on my own form of "libertarianism", http://www.debate.org...

Your ideal society reminds me of the Pilgrims when they first landed at Plymouth, immediately establishing a direct democracy with collective ownership. Then they switched to private ownership, and for good reason:

"All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advise of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of the number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression." (William Bradford, "Of Plymouth Plantation")