The lefts better argument

What I mean is that generally people of the inclination to watch the evening news broadcasts will generally
have an idea of what they are voting for when the time comes for an election - and what they are voting for is to keep themselves as near or above the level of income and comfort they enjoy now. They intuit which party will do that for them.

Generally people are inquisitive - I expect if you ask someone what they believe communism can do for them - they will have an idea of its content
but compared to someone like you that researches that stuff they dont have a clue. Thats the point tho.

I used to research politics till I felt I knew enough to make my own decisions and reason. I can propogandise and theorise all I like-
but I will never beat a pragmatics argument with idealism - why?
well - people have enough intelligence to realise that voting for an idealist involves faith. The faith that their idealism ammounts to a new livable reality.

DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD? no neither do they - nor do I
we aint got that kinda faith - best trust in something that works half well than something that may - or may not - work

Balbus - I havent looked at your profile so dont know anything about you but you have a good line of reason - I dont doubt your integrity, sincerity, or knowledge, however the construction of an argument is a lot different to
merely having some facts and telling the truth.
I dont believe the left can win that way - not that way by itself.
If you have reason - that persuades intelligent people (the intelligensia - at universities etc)
The rest need their facts presented in bite sized entertainment
we are a culture that lacks concentration - the right wing does not bore these people it entertains them with fascile TV and bitesized news
All we do on the left is bore them to death
They would believe us more if we were more entertaining - thats not to say they are stupid - just they aint got the time to listen too busy earning money to have fun with and bring up families at the same time

 

What I mean is that generally people of the inclination to watch the evening news broadcasts will generally
have an idea of what they are voting for when the time comes for an election - and what they are voting for is to keep themselves as near or above the level of income and comfort they enjoy now. They intuit which party will do that for them.

Thanks Doc this made me smile it has the kind of naivety that verges on the heart warming side of quaint.

The problem (as already indicated) is about whose presenting the news, and if it is or isn’t fair and balanced?

Let us take an extreme case, a majority of Germans in the 1930’s –early 40’s really did see such people as Slavs, Jews and Gypsies as inferior races.

The state used propaganda to instil this idea within the German people’s brains.

Was it true?

The thing is that if someone is told something enough and if no alternative argument is allowed, people can come to believe things that are false.

I’m not saying that today’s news media is as blatant and all pervasive as the nazi propaganda machine but in many ways it can be used to spin ideas and maniple peoples thinking.

In the UK much of our news media is still newspaper driven with stories from them becoming the story of the day (eg Prescott’s crochet game). But in the UK most of the newspapers have a right of centre agenda (the Prescott story broke in the Daily Mail) and I believe that Rupert Murdock’s Sun is still the biggest selling newspaper in Britain.

But the BBC is supposed by its rules to give a ‘balanced’ view but even that can be subverted.

In the US the situation is even worse than in Britain, much of the news media is corporate and openly right wing.

Also remember that the US had a purge of left wingers in many of its workplaces and institutions (including the media) back in the 1940 – 50’s.

**

The other problem with your assertion is the idea that peoples views and desire are the only consideration in voting and so “intuit which party will do that for them”.

In many places the political system is such that you are often left having to choose not for what you want but for the lesser of two evils.

In a first past the post system like that for general elections in England, you may end up voting tactically, for example a labour member voting LibDem to make sure a Conservative doesn’t get in.

In the US (as Cute had pointed out) the situation is more difficult, the American political is very much a two party system, with both parties being basically on the right in national terms. People might want to vote for something different but such is the dominance of the big two that may think it not worth it.

So you end up with having socialists voting for right wing Democrats just so they can try and get out even more right wing Republicans.

We’ve had those arguments many times here with people saying that people should just hold their nose and vote for Kerry just to try and get out Bush.

**

“you have reason - that persuades intelligent people (the intelligensia - at universities etc)
The rest need their facts presented in bite sized entertainment
we are a culture that lacks concentration - the right wing does not bore these people it entertains them with fascile TV and bitesized news”

Are you saying that ‘normal’ people are too thick and too dizzy to understand reason?

This doesn’t seem very complimentary of your fellow citizens.

I’ve heard that in the UK 40% of people now go to universities and that figure is rising.

OH here we are, you don’t think them stupid -

“just they aint got the time to listen too busy earning money to have fun with and bring up families at the same time”

But so are many of us, it sounds like you think left wingers are some type of different species than the rest of the human race, who don’t have to earn money, raise kids and have fun. Also it still seems rather contemptible of ‘normal’ people whose lack of concentration and love of frivolity means they have no time to think rationally or reasonably.

“They would believe us more if we were more entertaining”

What do you mean by ‘more entertaining’? Are you saying that a Daily Mail comment article is more entertaining than a comment article in the Guardian? Is Jim Davidson more entertaining than Rory Bremner because he has right wing views and the other doesn’t?

Isn’t it all a little bit subjective?

I mean when you say “the right wing does not bore these people it entertains them with fascile TV and bitesized news”

What are you thinking of?

**

 

Actually you are right ! some of my arguments were - on reflection - a bit puzzling even to me when I read them back.
Cant you see what I'm getting at tho - its not that the majority of people dont know what the arguments are - its that they are trapped within a system that demands they vote for whoever appears to be making them better off. The fact that the left wing offers a more sociable argument only wins when the ecconomy is down. When people are well off they can afford to take care of themselves. Most people percieve that the left wing is too expensive an economy to run. Higher taxes and usually a high level of national debt. It costs a lot of money to fund the left wing.
Take it to an extreme where the extreme left wing calls for revolution and there is no chance !! people dont want that gamble. The left wing consistently fails to get the message across because it cant explain how its economy is benificial to people at an individual level in terms of a persons take home pay. Like in Britain during the 60's and 70's when the socialist government taxed the rich at 93% tax or was it 97%? and taxed the poor at close to 40% all told
Ever since then the structure of government changed and we now have two right wing parties and a farcical left oriented liberal party that hurries back to the right ground whenever it has to

 

the left is always telling us that by working with the state or through the state that they are working on behalf of the people, for the the betterment of mankind,

And on that point, they are almost always correct, especially here in the former American republic. Some may respond and claim otherwise, conveniently setting aside the fact that the Internet was developed by the US Government using our tax dollars.

The snack you're probably munching on, or the drink you're sipping probably gets to you via the Interstate highway system. The fact that you're not sitting in the dark writing a letter in candlelight may be due to the rural electrification programs that the government put together a few decades ago. Were it not for Social Security and public health programs, your parents may not have even survived to give birth to you.

The private sector is the ultimate threat to our privacy, security, health, welfare, and future. Government is the only tool the public can use for protection against the private sector. Government can do bad things (but almost always when manipulated by those in the private sector who claim to be in favor of "less government") and that the private sector can do some things better (but only when government stands over them with a club, ready to beat them down).

Many technologies that we take for granted today were simply too expensive and risky for development by private businesses, and required an "all or nothing" societal commitment.

 

You're assuming that i agree with your deification of 'progress'.

Oh, how I wish we could be rid of automobiles and their highway systems that scar the planet, poison the air, and destroy local communities.

How i wish we could be rid of cheetos, doritos, mountain dew, coca-cola, mcdonalds, and anything else we dare call food. Jesus Christ, Nestle gets their cocoa from child slave labour!

How i wish we could be rid of electricity! Yeah, i know sounds pretty odd doesn't it? I wish families could tear themselves from television, xbox, and yes even the computer *gasp*. Slaves to cell phones and email, thanks to the telephone merchants can now call me before i show any interest in whatever they are selling. Because of electricity, we have artificial suns, nothing to stop us from working between the hours of 12:00am-11:59PM. Glorious, glorious electricity, how did we ever manage to go thousands of years without you?

Social Security? Of course, god bless this completely voluntary program that ensures that all the money brought into it stays there and keeps it's promise of making sure our 70yr old grandparents don't have to work at walmart....wait, nevermind.

And the private sector? Last time i checked the state and the private sector were still in the middle of the "sitting tango"...
Protects us? When it cuts industry more and more slack in order to seduce it back to it's part of the globe? The State will always, always have a closer relationship to the left and right of the political spectrum than it will have with the individual.

You'll forgive me if i don't get on my knees and thank the State for it's help with the 'progress' of humanity.

God forbid human beings would live in small self sufficient communities where their main focus were the health and wellbeing of family and community.

God forbid.

(oh, and when your grandchildren ask what happned to the polar bear, be sure to have them thank the State for the Interstate highway system that brought your snacks to you faster).

 

Mods- please delete this post, I find no way to do so myself...

 

I did in fact assume that you agreed that "progress" as it's usually understood is something you value. To me, "progress" includes the following:

-Having the best likelihood that those I love most, my wife and kids, will be able to live as long as possible free from pain (not possible without modern medical technology and transportation of equipment and medicines). Without such things it's very unlikely that I would be alive to think, learn, love, listen, laugh, and all that stuff.

-Having the ability to see a large part of the natural world without extreme physical risk, just to learn (not practical on foot).

-Having the ability to obtain as much information about our universe and our place in it (not possible if you're too busy hunting/gathering).

While I respect the idea of "living naturally," that "natural" living has been proven to have been dominated by pain and misery, death, and extreme disease.

God forbid human beings would live in small self sufficient communities where their main focus were the health and wellbeing of family and community.

Sure, in the past, humans lived in small communities where they did their best to find health and well-being. Instead they found short life-spans, with those lives dominated by pain and misery, tempered only with bizarre religions and superstitions as a means of coping. The romantic myths of peaceful humans living in tune with nature- never happened. It's not even debatable anymore. The anthropological evidence is overwhelming.

I will volunteer that there is one problem with my argument, but I don't have time now to get to it... at work and my lunch break just ended...

 

Well that would be all well and good were it not for the fact that the president of the USA is the representative of the Carlyle group of industries along with Cheney. It is harldy a protectorate of a welfare system but the usurper of public funds - same as in Europe
Government is there to protect business from the peoples demands for fair play - not to protect the public from the criminally negligent damage that industry inflicts on people and the environment. It is not pursuing a social policy but an economic policy biased toward the profit of the private sector

 

The stench from your fear of pain and death is overwhelming.

 

The stench from your fear of pain and death is overwhelming.

I guess if you're willing to endorse the forcing of pain, misery, disease, and death upon others, I shouldn't be surprised that you can find no argument whatsoever to sustain your point of view.

The stench of your apparent lack of compassion or personal ethics is appalling.

Let me guess- you're one of those people who believes that the Asian-American ("Indian") tribes "lived in harmony with nature and each other," right? And "used all parts of the buffalo" and stuff? LOL.

Re Polar Bears, note that the Asian-American tribes hunted nearly all large mammals to extinction long before the arrival of Interstate highways, and many centuries before the arrival of the Europeans.

I'm curious as to exactly where you think our ancestors should have resisted its urge to control its environment. Before the wheel? Before fire? Should Australopithecus have resisted its urge to wander the savannah? Should apes have resisted the urge to come down from the trees?

 

The thing is that Shane99 still hasn’t shown that most Anarchist thought is not left wing in what it ultimately wants.

Although some of his comments here seem to be placing him in a strange grouping that thinks people should suffer?

I can’t believe that you’re suggesting that Shane, what’s your justification?

**

Doc you seem to be arguing the case of perceived self-interest, but as has been already pointed out there is often the problem in just what or who is moulding that view of ‘what is for the best’.

**


Again no one is arguing the point that was made in the original post – that the left has the better argument.

 

Doc

One thing is that people confuse the idea of the individualistic ‘standard of living’ with the communal ‘quality of life’.

It is confusing because at a certain wealth a person’s quality of life can be anything from tolerable to exemplary. Wealth cushions people from the dangers even the inconveniences of a world inhabited by those with less.

Think of that simple thing – getting from A to B.

Remember Margaret Thatcher said something to the effect that if a forty-year-old was travelling by bus then they were a failure? And others have been equally contemptuous of public transport saying that they would not want to travel next to some grotty person on a smelly overcrowded carriage unless they had to.

So travelling by public transport is viewed as something undertaken by those with a low status, whose standard of living doesn’t allow them to get out of it. Remember many politicians don’t and I believe no cabinet ministers travel by public transport (although I have meet Ken Livingston on the tube).

So private travel is sold as better, the car, but what car? Does you ‘standard of living’ stretch to a secondhand Cleo or the latest four wheel drive hulk or a open top sports car. And what about driving yourself why not read the paper and be chauffeur driven (two Jags Prescott).

But hell who wants to be stuck in traffic wouldn’t it be better if you can afford it to have a helicopter.

The idea pushed as the individuals standard of living is often based on status and waste. Having a 7 mpg Chelsea tractor might increase the quality of life of the owner marginally but it has an adverse effect on the general quality of life of the community. And imagine what hell it would be if everyone had a helicopter.

The fact is that for short distances the best means of travel for us and the community is walking or cycling. For urban and semi-urban areas public transport is best. For medium and even long distances trains are best.

But in the UK those things have mostly been derided or shoddily dealt with over the past 20 years while car travel was often subsidised ands its true costs hidden from the public as were the problems of congestion that many predicted would arise from an increase in car ownership.

Many urban areas were designed more with the driver than the pedestrian or cyclist in mind I. Public transport was starved of investment or forced into misconceived privatisation.

Things are changing due to the fact that for many the dream of independent travel has turned into a (predicted) gridlocked nightmare (we now have a cycling Tory leader). This has been a public movement that has not been popular with many on the consumerist right, remember the dire predictions that flew around in the right wing press before the Congestion Charge scheme came in?

And the dream is still there, still being pushed just check out the fast cars been pornographied in Loaded or Nuts and on Top Gear

**

But the thing is that a consumerist society is geared up to push the idea of a status driven standard of living model over that of the whole communities quality of life model.

This in turn breeds the idea that the most important thing in life is personal wealth and the accumulation of material goods and that the wellbeing of others and the community is a very low second.

It is not surprising in such an environment that people think that the more money that goes directly into their pockets (in tax cuts) the better. The thing is that lower taxation can have an adverse effect on the community at large as things that increase the communities quality of life are starved of funds.

**

 

I'll speak up at this point and note the main weakness that I see in my argument:

Eventually overpopulation will probably break the entire machine, resulting in a massive die-off. The amount of overall pain and suffering will be huge, due to the large population, possibly featuring more pain/suffering than would have occurred should our ancestors not come down from the trees at all (or had somehow resisted the urge to find out about things). This was one of Kaczynski's points in The Unabomber Manifesto, and one that a lot of people seemed to overlook.

Humans really are far less violent and warlike now than at any other time in human history, and the more we learn about "primitive" people, the more we learn that "primative" really isn't a strong enough word for the brutalities they so casually inflicted upon each other.

PS- great post, Balbus. Kaczynski talked a bit about how decisions about adoption of technology are made, a process that inherently reduces the likelihood that overall societal considerations are taken into account. The result is a dependency on a technology that may not be in our overall best interests.

 

Who said anything about forcing pain and misery?

Wrong again chief.
Didnt anyone tell you what happens when you assume?
And this isn't AOL Teen Chat, no LOL's please...

 

Hey guy, no fair.
You move that topic to another thread and then bash me in here?
Not cool.

Putting words in my mouth guy.
I never said people should suffer.
I don't think the obsession mankind has for trying to defeat death and vanquish pain is healthy though.

We need pain as much as we need joy.

Am i the only one who's read Beyond Good and Evil?

As far as using pain and suffering to justify Sunlion's 'progress'....

I'm reminded of what ol' Ben F. used to say:

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. "

Yeah, i've always been of the belief that the risk makes the journey worthwhile.

There are no shortcuts without consequences.

You can't cheat death, no matter how many smoking bans are passed or seatbelt campaigns are launched.

Without pain what is pleasure?

Ah, but now we are getting into the philosophic aren't we?

 

Oh and Sunlion, as much as i dont give two shits about early asian-americans, you theory has already been debunked. Catch up.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1772731,00.html

 

No fucking way.

 

Who said anything about forcing pain and misery?

You did: "The stench from your fear of pain and death is overwhelming."

I regard both freedom from pain, and a long life in which one can study the world, as good things. You jumped my ass for suggesting that alleviating human suffering is a worthwhile human effort. I'm not the only one who has questioned your comments. You even added "I don't think the obsession mankind has for trying to defeat death and vanquish pain is healthy though."

I do. Nearly all human beings do. That you can see things otherwise suggests that you've led a very protected life, and haven't buried parents and children and in-laws and brothers and sisters and friends after struggling alongside them with health problems for extended periods. I'm happy for you, I really am. I hope you never have to find out what life can have in store for us.

Re the Nietzche book you mentioned, I've read it, and most readers of this thread probably have as well. Go ahead, jump my ass for using an abbreviation like "btw" and "re," if it will make you feel better.

Oh and Sunlion, as much as i dont give two shits about early asian-americans, you theory has already been debunked. Catch up.

Did you read the article? The megafauna extinction problem will probably not be resolved to everyone's satisfaction in our lifetime (and this fits nicely into my earlier comment about why one should value longevity). We have seen MANY studies related to this issue in recent years, and quite frankly, you're making yourself look rather uninformed by grabbing at any one study as being at all conclusive on this issue.

Obviously, global warming in the Holocene was a huge factor. But even the study you cite suggests that human hunting was also a major factor:

Guthrie: "These new data show that while humans could have contributed to the Pleistocene extinctions of mammoth and horse, these two species and others were apparently less well adapted to the rise of northern Holocene ecological conditions, favouring to some degree the modern grazing species."

But I'm sure you're aware that the best-adapted grazers also went extinct at the end of the Wisconsin. Those probably-tasty animals that had lived successfully before/during/after the pre-Illinoian and Illinoian glaciations- thousands of centuries in multiple instances of glacial advance and retreat- but became extinct only upon the introduction of humans after the Wisconsin.

Okay, back to you, pour out some fresh new insults if you want. It doesn't faze me a bit. Have at it.

Oh, and can you clarify your "no fucking way" comment? I can't tell if you're agreeing with me in a sarcastic way, or just pretending to be an idiot.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
The thing is that Shane99 still hasn’t shown that most Anarchist thought is not left wing in what it ultimately wants.

Hey guy, no fair.
You move that topic to another thread and then bash me in here?
Not cool.

The debate here is meant to be about the left having the best argument.

I moved the argument about whether Anarchy can be seen as ‘post-left’ somewhere else but I was just saying that so far, other than your assertions to the contrary, you still haven’t shown that most of Anarchist thought is not left wing in its thinking.


**

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
Although some of his comments here seem to be placing him in a strange grouping that thinks people should suffer?

I can’t believe that you’re suggesting that Shane, what’s your justification?


Putting words in my mouth guy.
I never said people should suffer.

Sun argued that humans have leant how to eradicate some pain, suffering and premature death, you said of him “The stench from your fear of pain and death is overwhelming”.

This suggested that you didn’t agree with this eradication of pain, suffering and premature death. This view seems reinforced by your comment -

I don't think the obsession mankind has for trying to defeat death and vanquish pain is healthy though.

We need pain as much as we need joy.

Am i the only one who's read Beyond Good and Evil?

(The problem I have with all that macho Nietzsche stuff about suffering making you stronger is that I find the only people that think it true are masochists and those that haven’t suffered greatly)

I mean it all seems to point to a belief that people should suffer, if not please explain your comments more fully?

As far as using pain and suffering to justify Sunlion's 'progress'....

I'm reminded of what ol' Ben F. used to say:

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. "

What do you mean by freedom and what do you mean by security?

 

The thing is that I think both the left and right want to reduce government, they just want to do in different ways and for different reasons.

The right are suspicious of measures that they see as hindering business interests like such things as labour and safety regulations and corporation tax. But they mostly support things like law, order and security regulations.

The left are suspicious of measures that they see as reducing or curtailing ‘freedom’ like such things as law, order and security regulations. But they mostly support things like labour and safety regulations and corporation tax.

There are those on the left and right who believe the best way of ‘freeing’ the spirit of private hierarchical and capitalistic enterprise or non hierarchical, non capitalistic, individualistic communalism, is to reduce or do away with all regulation and government.

These may be darker or lighter variations but they remain lift wing or right wing in their ideas.

And I would choose the passion of the left over the cynicism of the right wing view every time.


**

As to progress the thing is that left to themselves people will try and make left better for themselves. Nomadic hunter-gatherers often take from a plant then plants some of its seeds, thereby ensuring that on their next journey the plant with of multiplied (some believe the origin of agriculture). People began by adapting places to live to creating them. From skins to skyscrapers those structures had an impact on their surroundings.
Some of those problems could be resolved by just moving, but once structures became more permanent other means had to be found. Regulations were used to impose restrictions on activities or on the means or methods used in buildings. So you get rules about the disposal of waste, water use, drainage, building height etc etc.
This concept is well established and understood. It therefore can be used to bring about great changes in peoples quality of life.

Think about it, such regulations stop companies from pumping poisons into the water or into the air.

Reduce there impact or get rid of them, and people will once again begin polluting the environment in the name of profit.