General

Re: Big-Tent Rightism

Caley McKibbin — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 01:07:06 GMT

No? Let's try then, from an aesthetic sense (even though it's kind of bizarre to try seeing as the division of labor gets bundled in with a bunch of things political and economic (I have in mind the enclosure acts but nevermind)):

In the days of old, before machines ruled men, your neighbor would make you a shoe...

That is a problem regardless of the mathematical optimization we are aware of. I have no motivation to work a 9-5 job. That's why I ultimately turned to screenwriting, programming and software design. I tried to force myself to like the idea of going to college and sitting in a cubicle as an accountant or some such. Working on a production line was the most boring thing I ever did. I don't know how other people can do it. I get bored very easily. What makes it worse is the slavery based compensation model. The idea of locking people in a room, overseeing them and paying them according to how long they have been there is ridiculous. Most businesses are copies of the military. Dogmatic mantras, regimented processes and flat rewards. There are necessary reforms before we can seriously assess the conditions of specialization.

Re: Big-Tent Rightism

Caley McKibbin — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 20:26:15 GMT

So socialists are all short, fat, ugly, wimps, especially the females.

I wouldn't ascribe to a specific set of traits. The point is that having advantages makes you want to use them to get ahead. Not having them makes you want to sabotage those that do.

Re: Big-Tent Rightism

Smiling Dave — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 11:28:08 GMT

Speaking of which, try this: Muscularity and attractiveness as predictors of human egalitarianism. I think that people are hard-wired for self-serving ideas.

So socialists are all short, fat, ugly, wimps, especially the females.

Re: Big-Tent Rightism

Caley McKibbin — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 04:57:27 GMT

Personally I am intrigued by Walter Block's idea that man "is hard wired for Socialism".

Speaking of which, try this: Muscularity and attractiveness as predictors of human egalitarianism. I think that people are hard-wired for self-serving ideas.

Re: Big-Tent Rightism

JackCuyler — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:33:39 GMT

Jargon:
In the days of old, before machines ruled men, your neighbor would make you a shoe.

This is a perfect example of division of labor. You're not making your own shoes; your neighbor is.

Re: Big-Tent Rightism

vive la insurrection — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 01:28:41 GMT

1) That's not a "hatred" for the division of labor: that's just a look at typical psychologisms / lefty themes, institutional positive feedback, and narrow paradigm controlling tricks like alienation and "hyper specialization" lefties like to use . There is stil some vision of the division of labor in their heads (you still have a cobbler you have to go to, enjoy the "local charm" and "diversity" of all the small business and crafts, etc). I'll just leave it at that, though it is always very tempting to really take apart these clearly dubious, and probably self serving, statements (these are the type of comments that really drive people to take up econ I think).

The hunch is the hatred actually comes with the conequences of the division of labor - that is of something along the lines of "status" (hence the hierarchical haterade): If these so called "Wage slaves" (so named by intellectuals), with the same "cog like" job, were treated like rock stars, or had the same "social status / prestige" as a stock broker - the lefties would probably leave the proleteriat alone (though they kind of have already) and/or hate them as much as they do typical busnissmen (though they kind of do already) and find some other group of people to rabble rouse and caste their "sympathy towards" (which they kind of already have).

Also, because I can't help myself I don't think I need to tell you or anyone on this site: One can make a pretty strong case that the more one wishes to control such activities and create these "paradises" and perfect equlibriating state that exist in their own mind in such a socialist, bureaucratic, technocratic (pick one) manner the better the analogy one could make for people being real "cogs in a machine".

2) AN absolute hatred for something like the division of labor would be a hatred of life itself: everything would have to be destroyed with no concern for any forseeable future, nor any concern to actual create anything: this would include all of ones desires, loves, hates, relationships, etc. One could perhaps only value a "Nirvana" or vegetable man type amorphus blob existence, and perhaps have a revolutionary Bakunin outlok on things. THis too is a tendency of the left - and perhaps part of the "nihilistic pantheism" that seems inherent in some/ many peoples thinking.

Re: Big-Tent Rightism

Jargon — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:49:56 GMT

vive la insurrection:

2) About the whole hierarchy ordeal: I wonder if it could just be an odd relationship to the division of labor. That is, it is a way to contextualize the division of labor and show how one reactes to it. I personally, for the life of me, can not tell why someone would "hate" the division of labor - it doesn't even make aesthetic sense to me.

No? Let's try then, from an aesthetic sense (even though it's kind of bizarre to try seeing as the division of labor gets bundled in with a bunch of things political and economic (I have in mind the enclosure acts but nevermind)):

In the days of old, before machines ruled men, your neighbor would make you a shoe. You would come in for a fitting, and he would take his father's measuring tape and wrap it around your foot with his own two hands. He'd take his father's leather, nails, hammer, and soul and begin to craft it on the spot. He'd tell you "come back in a week!" and would labor personally over your shoe. He would take satisfaction and care, knowing that this was his craft and that no one could make a shoe quite like his. Each one was handmade. When you returned to him and finalized the exchange, you could smile knowing it was your neighbor and not an impoverished chinaman in a soulless automated factory, stamping a soul onto a shoetop with a steamfitter, shoe after shoe, all day everyday. Total repetition and zero dignity. Of course it's more productive, but what of the joy of creation? What of putting care and dedication into your craft and receiving the satisfaction of engaging and fulfilling labor? Replaced by the cold machine and man's implacable appetite for consumption.

Re: Big-Tent Rightism

Physiocrat — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:54:41 GMT

vive la insurrection:

That said there does seem to be a type of all inclusive "pantheistic" drive in a lefties mentality that would blot out all distinctions - so that may have something to do with it.

That "pantheistic" drive was what I was getting at with the universals over particulars statement. It is definitely a hallmark of the left.

Re: Big-Tent Rightism

vive la insurrection — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 03:10:08 GMT

1) I'd like to point out that my "hatred" of "the left" is kind of academic. I am mostly concerned, being a man who has been around it kind of a lot, the extremes and the margins of things - aswell as the how ideas sort of take over someone and push them towards filling a certain role and expectation you can see comming from miles away. But any critique or railing I do is merely a caricture.

2) About the whole hierarchy ordeal: I wonder if it could just be an odd relationship to the division of labor. That is, it is a way to contextualize the division of labor and show how one reactes to it. I personally, for the life of me, can not tell why someone would "hate" the division of labor - it doesn't even make aesthetic sense to me.

That said there does seem to be a type of all inclusive "pantheistic" drive in a lefties mentality that would blot out all distinctions - so that may have something to do with it.

Re: Big-Tent Rightism

gravyten577 — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:46:56 GMT

The Soviet Union was left on principal but could it be described as rightest in practice since there was obviously inequality. If Obama's policies lead to increasing inequality could Obama then be described as being right wing in practice even if his rhetoric is left wing

Re: Big-Tent Rightism

Physiocrat — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:11:57 GMT

The best, but by no means perfect, distinction I've heard between left and right is from Paul Gottfried who argues that the essence of the left is egalitarianism and the essence of the right is inegalitarianism. For the left then the fundemental principle is always does this bring us closer to equality. So when it comes to science they cannot admit any law or principle which contradicts the equality pressupposition. This is probably why they head to the humanities and social science departments since they are the places typically best shielded from reality. In these enclaves everything can be argued to be arbitrarily socially constructed. From a social persepctive redistribution easily follows from the egalitarian world view. I teach some high school Sociology and the prevelant view from it seems to be that all people are the same (there's no real distinction in gender, race etc.) but that each individual is entirely unique at the same time.

The right on the other hand see difference as ubiquitous and largely positive. Taken to its logically conclusion though the concept of a human race is not possible. In a way, in rightism particulars trump universals and in leftism universals trump particulars. Seen in this light the alignment of some libertarians, monarchists and nationalists etc makes sense since they are striving for a properly unequal (in some sense) society.

Re: Big-Tent Rightism

Jargon — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 13:35:59 GMT

Wheylous:

There are only two types of people: those that revert to the NAP as the ultimate of all discussions, and those who don't.

Technically, whenever you had a set S which belongs to the universe, there are always only two things in the universe: Set S and not set S. So yeah, you're right. Always. Thanks for not adding info.

Mind if I borrow this then?

Bogart:

There are only two kinds of people: Those that want human interactions to be voluntary and those that don't.

"Technically, whenever you had a set S which belongs to the universe, there are always only two things in the universe: Set S and not set S. So yeah, you're right. Always. Thanks for not adding info."

Or are you just angry that I'm abusing the sacred cow?

Re: Big-Tent Rightism

Wheylous — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 13:26:28 GMT

There are only two types of people: those that revert to the NAP as the ultimate of all discussions, and those who don't.

Technically, whenever you had a set S which belongs to the universe, there are always only two things in the universe: Set S and not set S. So yeah, you're right. Always. Thanks for not adding info.

Re: Big-Tent Rightism

vive la insurrection — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 08:58:55 GMT

@Kakugo:

I'll probably add more later, but I am short on tim: and I thnk this topic is a HUGE topic that is rather difficult to focus one's thoughts on.

1) I think one of the 1st things that have to be distinguished is how the left =/= socialism (where are the differences): in this it may be fine to note that all radical political expressions of the left (anarchism, scientism/technocratism, primitivism, etc) are a form of blatant socialism one way or the other, something that I have a hunch is true. Either way, just thining about "socialism would proabably be easier to focus on, however the name doesn't seem to occur so directly anymore. I think this may have to do with the face of the New Left and it's relationship towards (to use a buzzword) "post-modernism",

2) ABout "social justice": I had a thought, and upon request I could probably bomabard my next post with quotes from Moore, Fourier, Marx and Engles, Trotsky, Bakunin, Meslier, and any other "classic" socialist / radical name you can throw out there (excepting perhaps individual anarchists / mutualists) - and show examples of history (think the nature of the EU, the US Democratic Party, all the closed off commie countries, to things as old as Anabaptists) how a society has to be "closed off" and in complete control to "leftism" (or at least direct in your face socialism) - or it HAS to spread, it can not leave anything alone: it in it's nature - perhaps as an instinctive survival mechinism. Of course this could once again be asked, how does this game change and remain the same in regards to toady, and the way the left functions - I think it is much different in it's nature than the early 20th century.

3) A thought on being "reactionary" this is kind of addressed to fakename): When you have a group that is built off of creating problems, "raising conciousness", exploiting and dividing classes, and causing "class warfare" using any institutional apperatus available...and you have a group that almost does nothing but take "non things", turn them into monolithic entities to bludgeon people with while controlling the context and tempo of how one can handle the issue, and demanding it be settled in a very particular way - how can you be anything but reationary? It is just the very nature of things.

The real issue is what classes are they succesfully picking to divide at any given time (the poor, the sexes, species, race, etc), how are they doing it, and perhaps why is this division succesful as opposed to others? It's odd: most don't care about hierarchy, money, or pick an issue; except the people who demand these things be utterly abolished, they are obsessed with such things.

In other words: it is quite possible a "reactionary" is, by his nature, some poor naive schmuck who just got rear ended out of nowhere by people with an axe to grind. Is it because he was in a position of power and they were not, so he never noticed - or perhaps in a more subtle way, it's the other way around, who is the splendid blonde beast here?

Re: Big-Tent Rightism

Buzz Killington — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 02:02:32 GMT

I could get on board with that without the libertarians and reactionaries/monarchists. No way those contrasting visions are going to translate into a real world regime.