How does something that isn't there, say anything? You look at that statue of Colston, for example - and are offended by it. It means something different to you now than it meant to those who erected it, and it will mean something different again to subsequent generations. Who the giddy fuck are you to insist your current opinion, not only trumps that of previous generations, but removes it from the consideration of all subsequent generations? — counterpunch

I'm not offended by statues. I'm simply indifferent to them. My perspective is tearing them down is the best use of them, really. But I also don't expect tearing them down to do very much; at best it's a symbolic gesture, but I imagine that it sends a message as symbols do. Those statues were put up to reproduce history in a symbolic register, the mob which tears them down has the same function.

I believe the argument you've made applies to any action which goes against a tradition, regardless of the value of the tradition. I do side with you that traditions can be there for a reason, but I do think that their values should be weighed and measured. What those statues represent has been, and found wanting.

I reserve the right to judge traditions, just as you've done with the present state of the world and its habits of not listening to scientists! Ought that change? Who're you to go against the traditional relationship of science and politics? The argument you've used is very much a two edged blade.

What do you see? You see an anti western target for your politically correct virtue signalling - a myopic, self righteous view based on the lie that slavery was a particular cruelty invented and practiced by white people, against black people - because they're black. You think slavery was racism. But white people didn't go out and capture black people and force them into slavery. They bought slaves from black people; trading Western manufactured goods - cloth and metal tools for slaves, then trading salves for sugar and spices in the Americas, and then back to Europe to sell the sugar and spices. — counterpunch

I don't really like that you've told me what I see. What I see is the historical contingency that nations which largely consisted of people with white or light tan skin, for mercantile+economic reasons, decided that chattel slavery, indentured servitude and colonial expansion were good business ideas - these were the ur form of systemic racism. And then further historical contingencies that lead those slavers and their political ilk creating justifying ideologies for slavery - those are expressedly racist. We live in the legacy of those decisions, and their continued effects have been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt.

Slavery, structurally, clearly doesn't have to be a white person enslaving a nonwhite person. Slavery, insofar as it is relevant to our societies' present functions, absolutely was.

You despise the very civilisation that ended slavery — counterpunch

Nah man, I've got nothing but respect for Dessalines, and anyone that works to end slavery, apartheid, and discrimination of any sort.

and if you have your anti western way

Anti-western? I doubt you mean that in the sense that the west couldn't function as it does without systemic racism; with that I agree. But I don't really know why you would think I'm anti-western. What does that mean to you?

I mean, I don't believe it's possible to create a self sustaining fusion reaction that produces excess energy... in earth gravity. That doesn't mean it's not possible to force fusion to occur, but like you say - it requires more energy input, than is produced as output. The energy put in overcomes the exclusion principle; something that in the sun, is achieved by the huge gravity and density of hydrogen plasma. Nuclear fusion will never be a viable power source on earth.

During that two hours, did you perchance - go back and read my post? Or just spend it thinking up another one liner?

During that two hours, did you perchance - go back and read my post? Or just spend it thinking up another one liner? — counterpunch

I'd already read your post. I assume you're just into dealing with even the obvious criticisms of it.

In any case, there was a time when I valued these views; I still do, though not as I once did. But now it seems a repository for bigotry, jingoism, nationalism and is anti-science and anti-reason. — Ciceronianus the White

First, don't let the populism of Trump distract you here. Just because the GOP in America is in chaos doesn't mean that conservatism around the World is in chaos and has been defeated by right-wing populists. That's a false narrative, which naturally is eagerly upheld by people from the left.

Just ask yourself, which conservative leader has been in power in the West for the longest?

Angela Merkel.

Of course the Trumpist doesn't even realize that the German chancellor is from a conservative party, just as the typical American leftist today abhors the actual social democrat leaders in the West (of whom Tony Blair was actually the prime example). Yet it's telling that the moderate left and the moderate right are totally sidelined as focus is given to the populists in the media.

But what are the real power structures? The political division in the European Parliament tells something about the true power balance in the EU. And which is the largest faction? The EPP, center-right as it is known. And btw Angela Merkel's party belongs to the EPP, just like the local Conservative Party Kokoomus from here (whereas the UK Tories belonged to the ECR).



In my view the idea that conservatism has lost to right-wing populism simply isn't true. Conservatism hasn't fallen into jingoism, nationalism and anti-science reasoning. It's one narrative promoted by those who oppose conservatism.

You're indifferent to statues, but support tearing them down. Yeah, that makes sense. The thing is, building a statue is a constructive symbolic symbol. It communicates through time. Tearing them down isn't. It leaves nothing behind - and so says nothing beyond a fleeting moment of signalled virtue.

I used the term "you" in a collective sense - meaning, you left wing types. It came across as personal to you, and was more aggressive in tone than I intended. For that I apologise. But it remains that slavery existed since the dawn of time, and without the British Empire and the United States - it couldn't have been ended. It therefore seems to me, massively hypocritical - to denounce western civilisation for what had been a universal practice, throughout all of history - that we brought to an end.

This obvious left wing hypocrisy can only be achieved by denying the ubiquity of slavery to the human condition, and that's not a lesson you want to forget. Those statues should make you aware, and happy you live in a society and era that allows for individual liberty. Yet you, lefties - protest against the very society, philosophies and economic system that afford you that freedom. You act as if freedom is some natural default setting. It's not. Slavery is the default - and freedom is hard won. So no, it's not quite:

the argument you've made applies to any action which goes against a tradition, — fdrake

It's that you falsify the history to forge a weapon against the very system that affords you the freedom to have an opinion, and to express it. You turn our own achievements against us - and it's just dishonest. We have multi-cultural societies, and have set racial equality in law, but it's still not good enough for you lefties - because, when it comes down to it, you're playing identity politics, and it's a power game. It's you lefties stirring up racial animosity for political advantage - not the right. Western society isn't institutionally racist, there isn't a racist genocide being committed by the police. It's all a lie. You politically correct lefties are the real racists, only you're racist against white people so that's okay then! .

Just because the GOP in America is in chaos doesn't mean that conservatism around the World is in chaos and has been defeated by right-wing populists. — ssu

You're right. I should have limited my comments to the state of conservatism in the U.S. Here, it seems, we're witnessing a sort of rebirth of the views held by the John Birch Society, which was once denounced by conservatives.

I'd already read your post. I assume you're just into dealing with even the obvious criticisms of it. — Kenosha Kid

First, you might want to deal with obvious criticisms of the grammatical structure of your attempt at a sentence.

Then, you may wish to give my post a reasonable response.

Or, alternatively, you could just get fucked off.

You're indifferent to statues, but support tearing them down. Yeah, that makes sense. — counterpunch

I don't think it changes much, but is a mildly good thing that they're torn down. Mild preference for them being torn down. I'd have a stronger preference if I saw stronger evidence that tearing them down helped fight systemic discrimination, I'd have a weaker preference if I saw evidence that it doesn't help at all. I haven't seen any evidence, or convincing arguments, that tearing down the statues harms people or society. I've seen some evidence, and convincing arguments, that it helps in a limited way.

I used the term "you" in a collective sense - meaning, you left wing types. It came across as personal to you, and was more aggressive in tone than I intended. For that I apologise — counterpunch

:up:

No worries, I have the same bad habits of stereotyping the people I seem to disagree with.

This obvious left wing hypocrisy can only be achieved by denying the ubiquity of slavery to the human condition, and that's not a lesson you want to forget. Those statues should make you aware, and happy you live in a society and era that allows for individual liberty. Yet you, lefties - protest against the very society, philosophies and economic system that afford you that freedom. You act as if freedom is some natural default setting. It's not. Slavery is the default - and freedom is hard won. So no, it's not quite: — counterpunch

I don't think "slavery is the default" fits the anthropological record; from what I've read of it there's very few things that compare to international slave raids and barter of people between societies. David Graeber's "Debt, The First 5000 years" has rather a lot of relevant detail on this. I wouldn't say this automatically means anything like modern freedom fits the record either; we're kinda similar to Ancient Greek slaves - we form contracts with people for performing services and receive money as payment.

t's that you falsify the history to forge a weapon against the very system that affords you the freedom to have an opinion, and to express it. You turn our own achievements against us - and it's just dishonest. We have multi-cultural societies, and have set racial equality in law, but it's still not good enough for you lefties - because, when it comes down to it, you're playing identity politics, and it's a power game. It's you lefties stirring up racial animosity for political advantage - not the right. Western society isn't institutionally racist, there isn't a racist genocide being committed by the police. It's all a lie. You politically correct lefties are the real racists, only you're racist against white people so that's okay then! . — counterpunch

Formal equality under the law doesn't signal the absence of systemic discrimination in a society. If you understand systemic discrimination as "institutional discrimination", I think you've been interpreting systemic discrimination in a limited way; missing the intended interpretation. It's more of a functional thing than a legal thing - closer to something like "a society can be said to be systemically discriminatory against group X iff belonging in group X amplifies exposure to negative outcomes relative to those who are not in group X AND that exposure has strong social+economic contributory causes". In general now we're talking about stuff like black people in the US being exposed more to dangerous levels of lead paint due to Jim Crow laws, redlining etc than a formalised legal difference between the groups. The same kinda thing for hiring disparities with equivalent CVs but you change the racialisation or gender association of the name! Formal inequality under the law (a form of institutionalised discrimination) would also fall under that general characterisation.

Nuclear fusion will never be a viable power source on earth. — counterpunch

Well, I wouldn't be so sure about that.

I'll get back to you when it is...

Economists like Menger and others have far earlier shown how flawed the theories are, but the most obvious example is the little if meaningless impact of Marxian economics in current economics. — ssu

Have you been living under a rock the past 12 years? Marxist economics has been vilified for years. Like any theory about human action it's flawed but it's definitely experiencing a revival since 2008.

The way forward is heterogenous economics and Marx is part of it.

Just looking where most activated goodwill arises from on a balance sheet is a clear indication demand and supply isn't the whole story.

Yeah, superconductivity at room temperature is one of the most important breakthroughs, allowing for the magnets to be placed much closer requiring much less size and therefore energy usage. That's the recent game changer.

right wingers — Maw

...did you mean right whingers?

I do agree with you that capitalism is not only not the problem, it's the only game in town, as socialism is simply a re-distribution scheme and communism, a pipe-dream.

It's just a matter of rooting out the corruption which has pretty much paralyzed all systems. — synthesis

What if the corruption is part and parcel of capitalism though? A capitalist system allows an ever accelerating accumulation of wealth. This is in a way what everyone in a capitalist system ultimately strives for - not just to be rich, but to get exponentially richer.

It's obvious that the massive concentrations of wealth this produces come with associated power, and this power then competes with political power. The result is corruption, as politics becomes a tool for economic gain and vice versa.

Hard to see how to get out of that spiral without some kind of reform.

Tobias should be enlisted to do this — The Opposite

Thanks I take it as a compliment, though my time is also extremely limited... I am of the conviction that there is one reason for all. People from all stripes and walks of life can understand the difference between a good and a bad argument. That is an essential article of faith in philosophy I think, though not uncontroversial.

Communists censors everyone who is not in line with the Ingsoc's dogmas. — Rafaella Leon

Communist censors? A lot must have changed since I went MIA. Or do you just use 'communist' as a label for people who's political views you do not like? If so, isn't that some sort of 'Godwin' you exploit? The censors would never allow me to call you a national socialist for instance, but hey you may call everyone communist and associate them with Stalin.

First, you might want to deal with obvious criticisms of the grammatical structure of your attempt at a sentence. — counterpunch

Fair enough, editing fail.

Then, you may wish to give my post a reasonable response. — counterpunch

My response was perfectly reasonable. The fact that it's fatal to your argument and you don't want to deal with it doesn't make it unreasonable. This is your opportunity to defend your point; if you can't, you can't.

Or, alternatively, you could just get fucked off. — counterpunch

It's "get fucked" or "fuck off".

You're right. I should have limited my comments to the state of conservatism in the U.S. Here, it seems, we're witnessing a sort of rebirth of the views held by the John Birch Society, which was once denounced by conservatives.

The fate of conservatism is to be dragged in a direction not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of politics. Because they cannot alter change, and due to a fondness for authority and order, conservatives are often the hand-maiden of socialism, insofar as compromises and appeasement have led to greater state control (See Bismarck and the foundation of the modern welfare state). This control has not only served to hinder the rise of socialism, but also any path to liberty.

It's "get fucked" or "fuck off" — Kenosha Kid

It's possible to get fucked off. As in "You better shut you're mouth pal before I really get fucked off with you."

It's possible to get fucked off. As in "You better shut you're mouth pal before I really get fucked off with you." — bert1

That is true, or "I'm not going to play with those other children, mummy, in case I get fucked off." But neither fit the above context

Perhaps, and eventually, the Mods might oblige one to get fucked off...? As in, instead of one fucking off oneself, one might have them fuck one off with a permanent ban or some such?

Just trying to be helpful by giving possible translations.

I don't think nuclear fusion can work in earth gravity. — counterpunch

This seems to me to display a misguided picture of how the physics of fusion works. Seems to me the sort of thing that someone who has read pop accounts and not done the maths might say. On that basis I will not be taking much of Counter's pugilistic advice to heart, until I see some evidence to the contrary.

Turns out to be a rather fruitful turn of speech. I am grateful to counterpunch.

Have you been living under a rock the past 12 years? Marxist economics has been vilified for years. — Benkei

Carl Menger lived from 1840 to 1921, hence this isn't anything new. Marxist economics has been questioned right from the start and rightly so.

Like any theory about human action it's flawed but it's definitely experiencing a revival since 2008. — Benkei

Well, Marxists have allways said that it has experienced a revival. I thought Neo-Marxian economics was a big thing in leftist circles in the 1970's and 1980's with guys like Paul Sweezy.

The way forward is heterogenous economics and Marx is part of it. — Benkei

Explain a bit more what you mean by this, if you have the time.

What if the corruption is part and parcel of capitalism though? A capitalist system allows an ever accelerating accumulation of wealth. This is in a way what everyone in a capitalist system ultimately strives for - not just to be rich, but to get exponentially richer. — Echarmion

If capitalism would be so all encompassing greed, how do you explain then that even with capitalism many countries do have a lot of social cohesion and are just fine with things like the welfare state. Bismarck wasn't a leftist, but he went on with social-welfare legislation.

SSU says things like Marx has been proven wrong because supply and demand explain the economy better and yet thinks he must be taken seriously.

The fate of conservatism is to be dragged in a direction not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of politics. Because they cannot alter change, and due to a fondness for authority and order, conservatives are often the hand-maiden of socialism, insofar as compromises and appeasement have led to greater state control (See Bismarck and the foundation of the modern welfare state). This control has not only served to hinder the rise of socialism, but also any path to liberty. — NOS4A2

Then again look at present social democracy in Europe. Not hardly the movement that would have as it's agenda of doing away with capitalism. Yet social democracy is the actual movement that has prevailed and been very successful in the West, not totalitarian communism. The simple reason is that if something works and people are happy with it, then any political movement has to go with it and just bite it's tongue, however much the thing goes against their core ideology. Hence it's not so one sided as you think.

Yes we can! Bush signing Medicare part D in 2003, hence even Republicans are totally capable of enlarging the welfare state.

If capitalism would be so all encompassing greed, how do you explain then that even with capitalism many countries do have a lot of social cohesion and are just fine with things like the welfare state. — ssu

A welfare state is a counterbalance to capitalism, keeping its excesses in check. Without one capitalism would eat itself alive. It's thus prudent, for smart capitalists, to allow one, to keep capitalism otherwise rolling along longer, avoiding the crisis Marx predicted at its end... by slowly becoming more socialist.*

That's what "heterogenous economics" means, I suspect: a mixed economy, one with a mix of capitalist and socialist policies. Unless Benkei actually meant "heterodox economics" instead.

*(I think that there is a general pattern of that in all social systems, analogous to the evolution of parasitic organisms: if you kill your host then you die off with it, so there's selection pressure to evolve toward symbiosis rather than parasitism, mutual benefit instead of winning at another's expense. Thus social systems that destroy their societies to not memetically reproduce as efficiently as those that produce more stable and flourishing societies do.)

SSU says things like Marx has been proven wrong because supply and demand explain the economy better and yet thinks to be taken seriously. — Maw

The issue with Benkei was about Marx's value theory of labour. That actually has to do with supply and demand. Marx apparently wrote a lot else more, which isn't proven right or wrong by this.

As Carl Menger said way back in his time about the theory:

There is no necessary and direct connection between the value of a good and whether, or in what quantities, labor and other goods of higher order were applied to its production. A non-economic good (a quantity of timber in a virgin forest, for example) does not attain value for men since large quantities of labor or other economic goods were not applied to its production. Whether a diamond was found accidentally or was obtained from a diamond pit with the employment of a thousand days of labor is completely irrelevant for its value. In general, no one in practical life asks for the history of the origin of a good in estimating its value, but considers solely the services that the good will render him and which he would have to forgo if he did not have it at his command...The quantities of labor or of other means of production applied to its production cannot, therefore, be the determining factor in the value of a good.

Here the laws of supply and demand are a far better model.

A welfare state is a counterbalance to capitalism, keeping its excesses in check. Without one capitalism would eat itself alive. — Pfhorrest

I think people understand that societies made up of capitalists are far more complex than that. Let's remember that capitalism is private ownership of trade and industry while the classic definition of socialism is ownership of these by the community. Modern social democracy doesn't strive for that anymore, just to "curb the excesses of a market economy", hence just to regulate capitalism, in my view.

And also here is the crucial question: even if trade and industry is in private ownership, why cannot social cohesion and solidarity still prevail? A society is far more complex than just trade and business. There are many other bonds people have with each other than that. The counterpart might not be socialism, but perhaps social cohesion.

Imagine a forum without right wingers — Maw

All the leftists would be eating each other over the correct interpretation of Marx. You're lucky you have the right-wingers here to serve as the common enemy, it's the closest you'll get to leftist unity.

What if the corruption is part and parcel of capitalism though? A capitalist system allows an ever accelerating accumulation of wealth. This is in a way what everyone in a capitalist system ultimately strives for - not just to be rich, but to get exponentially richer. — Echarmion

You are absolutely correct, but corruption is part and parcel of all human activity. I do realize that the temptations are perhaps greater when wealth (power) is involved, but it's everywhere (all the time).

The fact that capitalism does appear to result in increasing concentrations of wealth can be attenuated by keeping the system as "honest" as possible, i.e., maintaining competition, keeping the politicians somewhat under control, using real money, etc. At present, it's a complete mess.

And I am not convinced that all but the few have such a maniacal propensity to go towards avarice. Just the same, keeping those things that can be regulated (within the context of freedom), regulated, you will get the best result possible.

Capitalism (like all human systems) has it's issues, but it's so incredibly efficient and has lifted an incredible amount of people out of poverty. It also a system that rewards merit, hard work, and most importantly panders to the market, where it is the masses [mostly] that decide what is going to be a successful product/service.

Top-down economics (like top-down everything else) is a disaster.