Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

The Inconsistency of Communist Idealogues

mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 5:52:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The Profoundly Self-Revealing Inconsistency of the Left's Communist Ideologues: Dissecting Where the Communism Comes From

Consistency is an overrated intellectual trait. In fact, as Emerson observed, "A foolish consistency can be the hobgoblin of small minds". However, the inconsistencies of dogmatists can be quite revealing, veritable openings to an insight into what really unconsciously motivates their beliefs.

Which roundaboutly brings me to the ideologically bumptious boosters of communism on the political left. I've frequently noticed, maybe you have too, that their particular fundamentalism suffers from a somewhat glaring mental blind spot wherein we discover a very telling inconsistency indeed.

The true believer in communism, you see, astutely realizes that he/she has a serious problem when it comes to the messily flesh & blood examples of communism that exist in the real world today. Communism as we find it being represented out there by its actual, avaricious practitioners, i.e. by transnational firms that earn a big honking F in global citizenship and environmentalism, cutthroat corporate Governments, tyrants, and all the motley Society worshippers who make up the ruling class and define the praxis of communism, is, alas, a quite different proposition from what the ivory-tower theory of Marx and Stalin devotees would have us expect.

According to the idyllic-ideological cultural narrative of Soviet Russia and other communist lands, the communistsystem is supposed to be an "enlightened selflessly" driven, social wellness generating machine, and our reward for being dehumanizingly reduced to its menial cogs is that most of the material prosperity trickles down to us. Of course the historical and empirical reality of communism is somewhat disillusioningly different. The aggrieving actuality of communsim is that it's a mode of production and a social power structure in which most of the wealth created by hard-laboring workers, and most of the economic and political power is hijacked (expropriated) by a small class of overgreedy owners and moneyed overlords (i.e. communists). The resulting status quo, is, to say the least, not in the ideal best interest of the working masses and the poor, in other words the bulk of humanity.

Such is the harsh and morally outrageous truth of communism debunked and beheld in all of its inequitableness. Now of course this is all quite inconvenient for the socially and self-indoctrinated members of the cult of deified communism who wish to maintain, and have us all buy into their faith in no markets, the selfless motive, and the Take only what you need Creed. How they deal with the mounting disconfirming evidence that points to the unfoundedness of their pseudoreligious conviction of the goodness of communism is the psychologically interesting thing.

How they deal with the abject baselessness of their belief, with the cognitive dissonance engendered by the irreconcilability of their doctrinaire persuasion with experiential reality, is to resort to a rationalized and quixotic inconsistency and an ideological purism/utopianism. Quite simply, they take and dig their intellectual heels into the position that empirical communism (communism as it takes form in the real world) isn't the genuine article at all, that its failure to completely conform to the perfection of their imagined ideal of the beautifulness of communism means that it can be dismissed out of hand, and excluded from being presented as damning evidence against the validity of their communist piety.

It's quite tautological and circular reasoning, or rationalizing, of course. Essentially the lame logic here goes: Communism is a lovely system with no serious faults to mar its loveliness, thus no serious faults that mar its lovliness can be imputed to communism, ergo communism is a lovely system with no serious faults to mar its loveliness. Put even more simply: Communism is good, therefore communism can't be guilty of any badness, and if communismisn't guilty of any badness then it's good. And round and round the question-begging thought process goes, rather like that of evangelicals who reason that the Bible is the word of God because in the Bible God says that the Bible is the word of God.

Which is to say that the feebly pseudological, ideologically befooled enthusiasts of communism make a subconscious intellectually-dishonest choice to hold firm in the fallacy that communism is what they want it to be, and that the impure instantiations of communism we find in countries such as Soviet Russia are impostors. This is the facile way that they use utopianism to evade ideologically inconvenient reality. Where they fall into inconsistency is in playing apologist for the less-than-ideal Soviet Russian communism that they put down as a rank bastardization. And in taking the side of the communists in a system that they admit is profoundly flawed, event to the extent of disparaging the working poor and the unemployed as losers who deserve blame for their own economic plight.

Well, what's up with this bit of talking out of both sides of your mouths, communists? From one corner of your mealy mouths we hear you contemptuously condemning our current system because it isn't really and truly communism; and from the other corner we hear that said system's rulers are just "successful" men and women who are entitled to their fair share of everyone else's production. What the juxtaposition of these two irrationally contradictory affective attitudes reveals is that your pro-communist stance, rather than being eminently logical as you-all like to make out, is more likely psychological.

The key to the psychological place that your emotive reverence for communism and communists emanates from, I suspect, is the positive, sympathetic view of affluent individuals that you often express, vs. the distinctly negative, unempathetic view of the workers that you seem to subscribe to. What this strongly suggests is that you harbor (perhaps in some Neanderthaloid part of your brains that amorally esteem strength and dominance) a primitive admiration for and desire to vicariously identify with "selfless", status-possessing, dominant members of the pack. Such vicarious identification certainly provides a self-esteem boost for aspiring and failed Horatio Algers, and for wannabe high-status males/females. Likewise, expressing uncompassion and disdain for the those who want to produce for themselves makes the ego-serving statement that you disidentify with them (even if technically, according to your income, you fit in the demographic of the "working poor"), and don't suffer from their alleged shortcomings.

At the heart of the "love story" of communism is a poignant tale of narcissism. Pro-communists sometimes accuse anti-communists of holding a viewpoint that's informed by a sneaking and resentful hate for the shinning "sharing" of the society, but of course they're actually projecting their own admiration, which skews their socioeconomic perspective and accounts for their adoration of communists and infatuation with the ideal of a system that gives one licentious freedom to pursue the egoistic dream of being a lazy bum and giving nothing but taking all.

The conclusion is located directly below
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.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 5:54:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Conclusion

All of the cocksurely commonsensical and logical arguments that pro-commusts avail themselves of to defend their psychological attachment to the social-sharing fantasy of a perfect communist society in which everyone is unfettered to fully actualize his/her primordial craving for socioeconomic wellbeing are just intellectualizations of the yearnings of our lazy bums and wanting to take from others, as it were. This is what it really comes down to, for communists; this is what their inconsistency and utopianism betrays. We should refrain from obligingly feeding into their denial by taking their arguments seriously. Instead, we should seek to sprinkle big grains of psychological salt all over their ideology, and critically confront them with the unconscious motives underlying their political and economic mind-set.
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.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 3:43:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 5:52:50 PM, mongoose wrote:
The Profoundly Self-Revealing Inconsistency of the Left's Communist Ideologues: Dissecting Where the Communism Comes From

Consistency is an overrated intellectual trait. In fact, as Emerson observed, "A foolish consistency can be the hobgoblin of small minds". However, the inconsistencies of dogmatists can be quite revealing, veritable openings to an insight into what really unconsciously motivates their beliefs.

Which roundaboutly brings me to the ideologically bumptious boosters of communism on the political left. I've frequently noticed, maybe you have too, that their particular fundamentalism suffers from a somewhat glaring mental blind spot wherein we discover a very telling inconsistency indeed.

The true believer in communism, you see, astutely realizes that he/she has a serious problem when it comes to the messily flesh & blood examples of communism that exist in the real world today. Communism as we find it being represented out there by its actual, avaricious practitioners, i.e. by transnational firms that earn a big honking F in global citizenship and environmentalism, cutthroat corporate Governments, tyrants, and all the motley Society worshippers who make up the ruling class and define the praxis of communism, is, alas, a quite different proposition from what the ivory-tower theory of Marx and Stalin devotees would have us expect.

According to the idyllic-ideological cultural narrative of Soviet Russia and other communist lands, the communistsystem is supposed to be an "enlightened selflessly" driven, social wellness generating machine, and our reward for being dehumanizingly reduced to its menial cogs is that most of the material prosperity trickles down to us. Of course the historical and empirical reality of communism is somewhat disillusioningly different. The aggrieving actuality of communsim is that it's a mode of production and a social power structure in which most of the wealth created by hard-laboring workers, and most of the economic and political power is hijacked (expropriated) by a small class of overgreedy owners and moneyed overlords (i.e. communists). The resulting status quo, is, to say the least, not in the ideal best interest of the working masses and the poor, in other words the bulk of humanity.

Such is the harsh and morally outrageous truth of communism debunked and beheld in all of its inequitableness. Now of course this is all quite inconvenient for the socially and self-indoctrinated members of the cult of deified communism who wish to maintain, and have us all buy into their faith in no markets, the selfless motive, and the Take only what you need Creed. How they deal with the mounting disconfirming evidence that points to the unfoundedness of their pseudoreligious conviction of the goodness of communism is the psychologically interesting thing.

How they deal with the abject baselessness of their belief, with the cognitive dissonance engendered by the irreconcilability of their doctrinaire persuasion with experiential reality, is to resort to a rationalized and quixotic inconsistency and an ideological purism/utopianism. Quite simply, they take and dig their intellectual heels into the position that empirical communism (communism as it takes form in the real world) isn't the genuine article at all, that its failure to completely conform to the perfection of their imagined ideal of the beautifulness of communism means that it can be dismissed out of hand, and excluded from being presented as damning evidence against the validity of their communist piety.

It's quite tautological and circular reasoning, or rationalizing, of course. Essentially the lame logic here goes: Communism is a lovely system with no serious faults to mar its loveliness, thus no serious faults that mar its lovliness can be imputed to communism, ergo communism is a lovely system with no serious faults to mar its loveliness. Put even more simply: Communism is good, therefore communism can't be guilty of any badness, and if communismisn't guilty of any badness then it's good. And round and round the question-begging thought process goes, rather like that of evangelicals who reason that the Bible is the word of God because in the Bible God says that the Bible is the word of God.

Which is to say that the feebly pseudological, ideologically befooled enthusiasts of communism make a subconscious intellectually-dishonest choice to hold firm in the fallacy that communism is what they want it to be, and that the impure instantiations of communism we find in countries such as Soviet Russia are impostors. This is the facile way that they use utopianism to evade ideologically inconvenient reality. Where they fall into inconsistency is in playing apologist for the less-than-ideal Soviet Russian communism that they put down as a rank bastardization. And in taking the side of the communists in a system that they admit is profoundly flawed, event to the extent of disparaging the working poor and the unemployed as losers who deserve blame for their own economic plight.

Well, what's up with this bit of talking out of both sides of your mouths, communists? From one corner of your mealy mouths we hear you contemptuously condemning our current system because it isn't really and truly communism; and from the other corner we hear that said system's rulers are just "successful" men and women who are entitled to their fair share of everyone else's production. What the juxtaposition of these two irrationally contradictory affective attitudes reveals is that your pro-communist stance, rather than being eminently logical as you-all like to make out, is more likely psychological.

The key to the psychological place that your emotive reverence for communism and communists emanates from, I suspect, is the positive, sympathetic view of affluent individuals that you often express, vs. the distinctly negative, unempathetic view of the workers that you seem to subscribe to. What this strongly suggests is that you harbor (perhaps in some Neanderthaloid part of your brains that amorally esteem strength and dominance) a primitive admiration for and desire to vicariously identify with "selfless", status-possessing, dominant members of the pack. Such vicarious identification certainly provides a self-esteem boost for aspiring and failed Horatio Algers, and for wannabe high-status males/females. Likewise, expressing uncompassion and disdain for the those who want to produce for themselves makes the ego-serving statement that you disidentify with them (even if technically, according to your income, you fit in the demographic of the "working poor"), and don't suffer from their alleged shortcomings.

At the heart of the "love story" of communism is a poignant tale of narcissism. Pro-communists sometimes accuse anti-communists of holding a viewpoint that's informed by a sneaking and resentful hate for the shinning "sharing" of the society, but of course they're actually projecting their own admiration, which skews their socioeconomic perspective and accounts for their adoration of communists and infatuation with the ideal of a system that gives one licentious freedom to pursue the egoistic dream of being a lazy bum and giving nothing but taking all.

The conclusion is located directly below

I'm sure that it felt quite fun and funny to parodistically turn my own words against me. However, your effort here lacks both creativity and cogency – my psychoanalysis of conservative free-marketarianism can't really be inverted and applied so broadly to those of us on the left. Sorry, I'd like to be able to say with grace "Good try", but it simply wasn't. One must be honest.
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.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 4:09:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 3:43:24 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/24/2011 5:52:50 PM, mongoose wrote:
The Profoundly Self-Revealing Inconsistency of the Left's Communist Ideologues: Dissecting Where the Communism Comes From

Consistency is an overrated intellectual trait. In fact, as Emerson observed, "A foolish consistency can be the hobgoblin of small minds". However, the inconsistencies of dogmatists can be quite revealing, veritable openings to an insight into what really unconsciously motivates their beliefs.

Which roundaboutly brings me to the ideologically bumptious boosters of communism on the political left. I've frequently noticed, maybe you have too, that their particular fundamentalism suffers from a somewhat glaring mental blind spot wherein we discover a very telling inconsistency indeed.

The true believer in communism, you see, astutely realizes that he/she has a serious problem when it comes to the messily flesh & blood examples of communism that exist in the real world today. Communism as we find it being represented out there by its actual, avaricious practitioners, i.e. by transnational firms that earn a big honking F in global citizenship and environmentalism, cutthroat corporate Governments, tyrants, and all the motley Society worshippers who make up the ruling class and define the praxis of communism, is, alas, a quite different proposition from what the ivory-tower theory of Marx and Stalin devotees would have us expect.


The key to the psychological place that your emotive reverence for communism and communists emanates from, I suspect, is the positive, sympathetic view of affluent individuals that you often express, vs. the distinctly negative, unempathetic view of the workers that you seem to subscribe to. What this strongly suggests is that you harbor (perhaps in some Neanderthaloid part of your brains that amorally esteem strength and dominance) a primitive admiration for and desire to vicariously identify with "selfless", status-possessing, dominant members of the pack. Such vicarious identification certainly provides a self-esteem boost for aspiring and failed Horatio Algers, and for wannabe high-status males/females. Likewise, expressing uncompassion and disdain for the those who want to produce for themselves makes the ego-serving statement that you disidentify with them (even if technically, according to your income, you fit in the demographic of the "working poor"), and don't suffer from their alleged shortcomings.

At the heart of the "love story" of communism is a poignant tale of narcissism. Pro-communists sometimes accuse anti-communists of holding a viewpoint that's informed by a sneaking and resentful hate for the shinning "sharing" of the society, but of course they're actually projecting their own admiration, which skews their socioeconomic perspective and accounts for their adoration of communists and infatuation with the ideal of a system that gives one licentious freedom to pursue the egoistic dream of being a lazy bum and giving nothing but taking all.

The conclusion is located directly below


I'm sure that it felt quite fun and funny to parodistically turn my own words against me. However, your effort here lacks both creativity and cogency – my psychoanalysis of conservative free-marketarianism can't really be inverted and applied so broadly to those of us on the left. Sorry, I'd like to be able to say with grace "Good try", but it simply wasn't. One must be honest.

You see, as Charleslb said, left wing ideaologies, unlike "free-marketarianism", need not pass the test of logic... You see, revolutinary egalitarianism is so morally right, that it CAN defy logic
President of DDO
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 4:15:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 3:43:24 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/24/2011 5:52:50 PM, mongoose wrote:
The Profoundly Self-Revealing Inconsistency of the Left's Communist Ideologues: Dissecting Where the Communism Comes From

I'm sure that it felt quite fun and funny to parodistically turn my own words against me. However, your effort here lacks both creativity and cogency – my psychoanalysis of conservative free-marketarianism can't really be inverted and applied so broadly to those of us on the left. Sorry, I'd like to be able to say with grace "Good try", but it simply wasn't. One must be honest.

But charles, since you used no solid evidence in your post, it applied no more to free markets than any other ideology; until you come up with actual evidence in favor of your opinions, not just rhetoric, your words can be applied to anything with just as much substance, and therefore mean nothing at all.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 4:29:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 4:09:03 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

You see, as Charleslb said, left wing ideaologies, unlike "free-marketarianism", need not pass the test of logic... You see, revolutinary egalitarianism is so morally right, that it CAN defy logic

Firstly, I said nothing of separate kinds or tests of logic for different ideologies. Rather, it's the psychology of progressives and conservatives (or leftists and rightists) that stand and fall on different merits, shall we say.

Secondly, truth is not a logical quantity, it's an axiological quantity, i.e. a values-laden and defined proposition. The moral and spiritual validity of egalitarianism then does in a sense defy and trump the validity of conclusions arrived at solely by aseptic logical thought. Even Star Trek's Mr. Spock eventually came to realize this. Perhaps one day so will you. And then you will grow beyond grounding your socioeconomic views in the uncompassionate and dispiteous rationality of free-marketarianism.
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.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 4:58:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 4:29:03 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/25/2011 4:09:03 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

You see, as Charleslb said, left wing ideaologies, unlike "free-marketarianism", need not pass the test of logic... You see, revolutinary egalitarianism is so morally right, that it CAN defy logic

Firstly, I said nothing of separate kinds or tests of logic for different ideologies. Rather, it's the psychology of progressives and conservatives (or leftists and rightists) that stand and fall on different merits, shall we say.

Secondly, truth is not a logical quantity, it's an axiological quantity, i.e. a values-laden and defined proposition. The moral and spiritual validity of egalitarianism then does in a sense defy and trump the validity of conclusions arrived at solely by aseptic logical thought. Even Star Trek's Mr. Spock eventually came to realize this. Perhaps one day so will you. And then you will grow beyond grounding your socioeconomic views in the uncompassionate and dispiteous rationality of free-marketarianism.

I envy you. You are unable to disregard all logic and science with regard to your political beliefs... This shows how mature you are

Maybe I will grow beyond logic and science one day... but I'm not there yet...
President of DDO
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 5:16:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You seem to equate "free marketarianism" with conservatism. But wouldn't we really be progressives since we favor a change in society I.e. ending tariffs, minimum wage, subsidies, patent and intellectual property monopolies, general big business/government partnerships, and other coercive economic policies? Conservatives are usually hostile to change in society, favoring tradition of sorts. But since the American tradition has been protectionism and other anti-market policies, wouldn't we be the progressives?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.