You are over-simplifying ("binary descriptions") complicated, higher concepts.
If terms are not well-defined and commonly understood, then how can productive communication, and therefore *real* progress (as opposed to the regressive "progress" of the inappropriately named Progressives) be made in human societies?
You are over-simplifying ("binary descriptions") complicated, higher concepts.
If terms are not well-defined and commonly understood, then how can productive communication, and therefore *real* progress (as opposed to the regressive "progress" of the inappropriately named Progressives) be made in human societies?
This is why I recommend abandoning the use of certain terms which no longer designate anything reasonably well-defined. Someone once said to me, "Don't call yourself some name. Just tell people what you want to do, and let them call you names."
I think you *appropriate* terms in order to fool peeps into abandoning the politcal system of maximum individual freedom and agency, Capitalism, with its political system of (classical) liberalism, which *liberates* the individual from the group, especially the largest group of all, Society, and its terrible agent, the State.
Capitalism is an economic system; political ideologies adapt to it, not the other way round. It's "an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."
As I said, Capitalism *is* (Classical) Liberalism.
To put it in your terms, Capitalism is the economic system required by the political system of Liberalism (properly defined and placed on the RIGHT side of the political spectrum, about 10% of the way to the left of the RIGHT endpoint, Anarchy).
I'd rather explore your ideas than mine, since I already know about mine. (I got mine mostly from life experience, but people have different experiences.)
We had better avoid _left_ and _right_ in the political sense of the terms, though, because it's clear we're using the terminology differently.
I agree that the purpose of inventing liberalism was to devise a system in which the freedom of (some of) the participants was maximized, as opposed to (for example) monarchical systems in which God or Mr. Hobbes conferred absolute power or divine right on some persons and not others. In its early instances, however, we can't reasonably say that liberalism was interested in _everyone's_ freedom, because it left out women, children, the Negro slaves, people without property, and so on. There is a funny epigram about Thomas Jefferson and his relationship with Sally Hemings: "He dreamt of liberty in the arms of a slave." Or we can ask with Dr. Johnson, "How is it we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of Negroes?" (Dr. Johnson was so conservative he was a partisan of the Stuarts.) Besides ignoring the supposed rights of the Negro slaves, it also failed to defend the rights of the American Indians to their land. At some later point, liberalism was modified, and _some_ rights were extended to the previously unliberated. On what basis do you think this happened? I'm looking for the fundamental values of classical liberalism here as you all see them.
And you nail the big question (although I don't think I quibble when I say we *must* make clear definition of the political spectrum (the "left" and "right") for humanity to exit what I call the insidious Alexander Tytler cycle of societal progression).
To wit, "On what basis do you think this happened?"
My answer: The (classical) Liberalism, and its Capitalist social implementation, espoused in the Declaration and (properly, yes that is pure opinion,) amendable Constitution corraling the State.
We just need a stronger corral, not an aggrandizement of that which ultimately enslaves the individual, State power.
By the way, "my ideas" are Objectivist philosophy, but please don't be offended by my reference to the unfairly (imo) treated Ayn Rand.
But the classical-liberal state, like all other states, didn't fall from Mars. It was created by people who wanted it to exist.in something like its present form, probably a substantial majority of the people who are or were politically active and at all influential. I can't prove it, but it seems to me that the aggrandizement of state power is a response to the desire for "more stuff, more services, more circuses", and, of course, more security. (Liberal) capitalism has to be driven ever harder to produce those mores, or risk popular discontent. And according to what I read, authoritarian capitalism (as in China) has the same problem.
They evolve more than be created. Bloody revolution "creates" new entities.
We have *devolved* from the founders' vision of the first nation in the history of mankind to Constitute a restriction on the central State, one that places the individual in philosophical and economic precedence over the group, every group, but most importantly the largest group, Society itself, and Society's terrible agent, the State.
*This* is *real* (I shouldn't have to put an adjective here) *Liberalism*. To liberate the individual from the depredations of his State.
The State, *every* State no matter how it is constituted, is mindless, of course. But it acts *always* with single-minded purpose, to expand and control *all* that it can, including the very individuals it is meant to serve!
*This* is real Fascism.
Today, the peeps are ignorant of these essentials.
To use the wonderful word, "Capitalism" (which *is* classical liberalism), in any way to describe the Fascism of Chinese "communism" is an abomination.
*Real* Capitalism is never "Authoritarian". It is the *opposite* of authoritarian. That is its point!!
If I can use my wealth, power, connections, prestige, knowledge, to make other people do things they don't want to do, that seems to me to be a diminution of everyone's freedom; of the poor, of course, but also of the better-off, who have to defend their advantages against those who don't have them (or hire someone to do it for them.) That defense will be embodied in the state, will it not? Also, it usually proves cheaper to pay off the dissatisfied than to fight them, and collecting the money/stuff etc. for the payoffs is usually assigned to the state as well.
I concede that the situation does not look much like primordial capitalism, where capital consisted of material goods and tools, and organization to use them for production. That was succeeded by what some call consumer capitalism, and then finance capitalism where the objects of exploitation are other, weaker capitalists.. (Substitute another word for "capitalism" if you like.) I do notice, though, that those who have power often use if to get more stuff; hence the Chinese politburo (executive committee of the state) is said to consist mainly of billionaires, which would probably be called "capitalism" in the United States while it was being called "socialism with Chinese characteristics" in China.
This (and further language like "exploit") betrays your Leftism. To *make* is to *force*, which has no place in Capitalism (as I have well defined and you continue to obtusely deny) except in self-defense. Now, if you had said "persuade" instead of "make"...
Look, M. Gordon, I honor your difference of opinion and your attempt to persuade mine, but I am not interested in defending my opinions any longer here, nor returning the effort to persuade you. I prefer to post on various substacks for a wider audience, which I feel we have lost here. If you wish to further explore where I am coming from, the literature is available for your search.
You are over-simplifying ("binary descriptions") complicated, higher concepts.
If terms are not well-defined and commonly understood, then how can productive communication, and therefore *real* progress (as opposed to the regressive "progress" of the inappropriately named Progressives) be made in human societies?
This is why I recommend abandoning the use of certain terms which no longer designate anything reasonably well-defined. Someone once said to me, "Don't call yourself some name. Just tell people what you want to do, and let them call you names."
I disagree.
I think you *appropriate* terms in order to fool peeps into abandoning the politcal system of maximum individual freedom and agency, Capitalism, with its political system of (classical) liberalism, which *liberates* the individual from the group, especially the largest group of all, Society, and its terrible agent, the State.
Capitalism is an economic system; political ideologies adapt to it, not the other way round. It's "an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."
Yes.
As I said, Capitalism *is* (Classical) Liberalism.
To put it in your terms, Capitalism is the economic system required by the political system of Liberalism (properly defined and placed on the RIGHT side of the political spectrum, about 10% of the way to the left of the RIGHT endpoint, Anarchy).
Does that work for you?
I'd rather explore your ideas than mine, since I already know about mine. (I got mine mostly from life experience, but people have different experiences.)
We had better avoid _left_ and _right_ in the political sense of the terms, though, because it's clear we're using the terminology differently.
I agree that the purpose of inventing liberalism was to devise a system in which the freedom of (some of) the participants was maximized, as opposed to (for example) monarchical systems in which God or Mr. Hobbes conferred absolute power or divine right on some persons and not others. In its early instances, however, we can't reasonably say that liberalism was interested in _everyone's_ freedom, because it left out women, children, the Negro slaves, people without property, and so on. There is a funny epigram about Thomas Jefferson and his relationship with Sally Hemings: "He dreamt of liberty in the arms of a slave." Or we can ask with Dr. Johnson, "How is it we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of Negroes?" (Dr. Johnson was so conservative he was a partisan of the Stuarts.) Besides ignoring the supposed rights of the Negro slaves, it also failed to defend the rights of the American Indians to their land. At some later point, liberalism was modified, and _some_ rights were extended to the previously unliberated. On what basis do you think this happened? I'm looking for the fundamental values of classical liberalism here as you all see them.
Thank you, M. Gordon, and very well said.
And you nail the big question (although I don't think I quibble when I say we *must* make clear definition of the political spectrum (the "left" and "right") for humanity to exit what I call the insidious Alexander Tytler cycle of societal progression).
To wit, "On what basis do you think this happened?"
My answer: The (classical) Liberalism, and its Capitalist social implementation, espoused in the Declaration and (properly, yes that is pure opinion,) amendable Constitution corraling the State.
We just need a stronger corral, not an aggrandizement of that which ultimately enslaves the individual, State power.
By the way, "my ideas" are Objectivist philosophy, but please don't be offended by my reference to the unfairly (imo) treated Ayn Rand.
But the classical-liberal state, like all other states, didn't fall from Mars. It was created by people who wanted it to exist.in something like its present form, probably a substantial majority of the people who are or were politically active and at all influential. I can't prove it, but it seems to me that the aggrandizement of state power is a response to the desire for "more stuff, more services, more circuses", and, of course, more security. (Liberal) capitalism has to be driven ever harder to produce those mores, or risk popular discontent. And according to what I read, authoritarian capitalism (as in China) has the same problem.
They evolve more than be created. Bloody revolution "creates" new entities.
We have *devolved* from the founders' vision of the first nation in the history of mankind to Constitute a restriction on the central State, one that places the individual in philosophical and economic precedence over the group, every group, but most importantly the largest group, Society itself, and Society's terrible agent, the State.
*This* is *real* (I shouldn't have to put an adjective here) *Liberalism*. To liberate the individual from the depredations of his State.
The State, *every* State no matter how it is constituted, is mindless, of course. But it acts *always* with single-minded purpose, to expand and control *all* that it can, including the very individuals it is meant to serve!
*This* is real Fascism.
Today, the peeps are ignorant of these essentials.
To use the wonderful word, "Capitalism" (which *is* classical liberalism), in any way to describe the Fascism of Chinese "communism" is an abomination.
*Real* Capitalism is never "Authoritarian". It is the *opposite* of authoritarian. That is its point!!
If I can use my wealth, power, connections, prestige, knowledge, to make other people do things they don't want to do, that seems to me to be a diminution of everyone's freedom; of the poor, of course, but also of the better-off, who have to defend their advantages against those who don't have them (or hire someone to do it for them.) That defense will be embodied in the state, will it not? Also, it usually proves cheaper to pay off the dissatisfied than to fight them, and collecting the money/stuff etc. for the payoffs is usually assigned to the state as well.
I concede that the situation does not look much like primordial capitalism, where capital consisted of material goods and tools, and organization to use them for production. That was succeeded by what some call consumer capitalism, and then finance capitalism where the objects of exploitation are other, weaker capitalists.. (Substitute another word for "capitalism" if you like.) I do notice, though, that those who have power often use if to get more stuff; hence the Chinese politburo (executive committee of the state) is said to consist mainly of billionaires, which would probably be called "capitalism" in the United States while it was being called "socialism with Chinese characteristics" in China.
"...to *make* other people..." (italics mine)
This (and further language like "exploit") betrays your Leftism. To *make* is to *force*, which has no place in Capitalism (as I have well defined and you continue to obtusely deny) except in self-defense. Now, if you had said "persuade" instead of "make"...
Look, M. Gordon, I honor your difference of opinion and your attempt to persuade mine, but I am not interested in defending my opinions any longer here, nor returning the effort to persuade you. I prefer to post on various substacks for a wider audience, which I feel we have lost here. If you wish to further explore where I am coming from, the literature is available for your search.
Thank you for the discussion!