1) Are there any articles, or can anyone tell me how the left got so fashionable? Is there something inherent about it to appeal to the "hip and sophisticated"? I have a couple of theories, but I can't really back them up
2) Does anyone know if university profs in the USSR were typically supportive of there regime or communism in general, and today are they mostly socialist types?
3) has anyone read the black book of capitalism? does it actually attack capitalism, or just colonialism, slavery, and things of that nature.
4) Can the underlying theory of social democracy really just be summed up as "might makes right". Meaning that the institutions and Burocracies are really not held accountable to any laws or constitutions unless forced to by a strong majority (or strong minority)
I think where the left gets its strength are issues of social inequalities and resistance to partocularly nasty Authoritarian regimes (at least in the post 1990 world).
Things like opossing apartied, anti-war, anti-racism, anti-sweat shops etc. are not the preserve of those on the Left, however they have used their organizational ability to take command of these causes and use them as an extension of their political ideologies.
There is nothing to say that a Conservative, a Libertarian, a Civic Nationalist or a Market-Anarchist wouldn't support any of the causes above, however they are portrayed as Left leaning ideals.
Dondoolee:1) Are there any articles, or can anyone tell me how the left got so fashionable? Is there something inherent about it to appeal to the "hip and sophisticated"? I have a couple of theories, but I can't really back them up
Ludwig von Mises The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality might be what you're looking for to an extent.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
your first question is intimately tied up with the scientism that started really taking off in the 1880's.
I'd suggest How Richard Dawkins got pwned by Mencius Moldbug
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-dawkins-got-pwned-part-1.html
nazgulnarsil: your first question is intimately tied up with the scientism that started really taking off in the 1880's. I'd suggest How Richard Dawkins got pwned by Mencius Moldbug http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-dawkins-got-pwned-part-1.html
Great article, it's going to take a couple readings to fully digest though. From a quick first read (I glanced through all 7 parts) it seems to address the issue at least somewhat. Even if it doesn't it looks to be a great read as I have major issues with scientism, I too have refused to call myself an athiest for the past 4 yearsand have used the term "non spirtual" for lack of a better term.
the relevance is that the university system is the main justification used by the left. most arguments boil down to "the scientists are on our side". But really many of those scientists are just another religious sect *outside of their own area of expertise*. That last phrase is important. I am not anti-science. But I am anti halo effect (thinking that because a person is qualified for x they are also qualified for y without justification). Many (most) scientists are statist despite being highly intelligent. why? that's where the money comes from. and most lack the economic background to understand how it could be any other way.
It does go back to before the civil war, but really the civil war was the big victory for the statists. everything that came after: the scientism of macroeconomics that justified central banking, central banking leading to crisis, which lead to FDR's welfare state... these are the aftereffects of the civil war.
I am not anti science either, not in the least. The six people who I can think of off the top of my head that have degrees in economics (mind you, I am not that close to any of them) are all very similar types of people as far as I can tell. They all seem to be "science geeks", have no real intrest in policy or anything like that, they almost seem not interested in the concept of economics the way most Austrians/libertarians/middle class people seem to be, and there personalties are definatly all sort of that stereotypical aspergerish-lite type personality or a stereotypical pretensious nerd type. Like I said these are only from six people who I am not well aquainted with, so I may be completley off the mark.
We know the agenda of the left is to take existing instutions and expand them. Expand the role of the IRS, expand the EPA, DOE, the military, welfare, SEC, United Nations, the role of the Federal Reserve-and on and on and on.
So to the left's credit, they have already won. Via a lot of dead bodies, and years of confiscatory taxation, intimidation, fraud, inflation, and extortion they have build the infrastructure for their new schemes. Their victories, give them a strong rally base and a bully pulpit.
To top this off, their message is 'inspiring'. Messages of popular uprising, communal brotherhood, universal this and that, cleaner earth, Education-Health Care, when lumped-in with using the state for teleological social 'progress'--easily captures the minds of starry eyed hopefuls. in that, their lofty rhetoric pulls at the heart strings, and appeals to every human emotion. Obviously Obama being the embodiment of populist demagoguery, It's a 130 year long evolutionary process and they have gathered millions of dupes along the way.
that's my short explanation of how they become so popular. Although i don't think they are as popular as you might suggest.
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
the main strength of the left is that it is anti-democratic (rightly so). The left wants to take things out of the hands of the individual and put them in the hands of dubious experts (the people in charge of the aforementioned federal agencies and regulatory bodies).
libertarianism is economically democratic. you vote with your dollars. social democracy generally means the enforcement of social norms on others. confusing the two is a deadly mistake that the founding fathers made. Though to be fair Jefferson tried hard to warn everyone.
fezwhatley: We know the agenda of the left is to take existing instutions and expand them. Expand the role of the IRS, expand the EPA, DOE, the military, welfare, SEC, United Nations, the role of the Federal Reserve-and on and on and on. So to the left's credit, they have already won. Via a lot of dead bodies, and years of confiscatory taxation, intimidation, fraud, inflation, and extortion they have build the infrastructure for their new schemes. Their victories, give them a strong rally base and a bully pulpit. To top this off, their message is 'inspiring'. Messages of popular uprising, communal brotherhood, universal this and that, cleaner earth, Education-Health Care, when lumped-in with using the state for teleological social 'progress'--easily captures the minds of starry eyed hopefuls. in that, their lofty rhetoric pulls at the heart strings, and appeals to every human emotion. Obviously Obama being the embodiment of populist demagoguery, It's a 130 year long evolutionary process and they have gathered millions of dupes along the way. that's my short explanation of how they become so popular. Although i don't think they are as popular as you might suggest. Maybe I'm just a naturaly pessemistic, but I have always viewed the left as so entrenched in the world and probably unconquerable at this point in time. However I do believe that it will eventually collapse. The more power it gains the closer it is to collapsing, I just hope the damage it leaves behind isn't so completley catostrophic that we can't recover from it.
Maybe I'm just a naturaly pessemistic, but I have always viewed the left as so entrenched in the world and probably unconquerable at this point in time. However I do believe that it will eventually collapse. The more power it gains the closer it is to collapsing, I just hope the damage it leaves behind isn't so completley catostrophic that we can't recover from it.
fezwhatley:We know the agenda of the left is to take existing instutions and expand them. Expand the role of the IRS, expand the EPA, DOE, the military, welfare, SEC, United Nations, the role of the Federal Reserve-and on and on and on.
I think it is worth pointing out though, that the Left is by no means a homogenous entity and that not all groups would for example wish to expand the military or even support the actions of the IRS.
As I suggested above, it is the way the Left have taken over humanitarian, anti-fascism, anti-racism and such causes which ahs given them a bedrock of support.
Whilst the many factions of the Left will infight over various ideologies they all tend to agree on certain topics which are core to their politcal ideologies (e.g. anti-racism) and thus have a habit of taking over these causes and shutting anyone else out of the debate.
TechDev: I think it is worth pointing out though, that the Left is by no means a homogenous entity and that not all groups would for example wish to expand the military or even support the actions of the IRS.
I quickly considered all the left-wing factions, and averaged their opinions together. You might have a point on the military, but I think many lefties want to find new roles for the military to play, such as; peace keeping, nation building- Darfur, Palestine, Mianmar etc. As long as they advocate new, and progressive uses of the armed forces, they want to expand the military.
On the IRS, the left, basically unanimously wants more taxes, and more revenue for the government. So they do want to expand an agency that collects taxes.