Originally Posted by spence
It's also part of who we are. If someone behaves in a socialistic manner out of a genuine sense of charity or belief in equality does that make their intention bad? Like usual, this isn't a world of extremes.
The intentions of socialists are good. When they are expressed in a personally charitable way, that is, helping others out of their own pocket or their own labor-- I don't consider that socialism. That's just the true milk of human kindness. I consider socialism to be a much more EXTREME form of goodness, in which out of the desire to eliminate the ills that befall mankind, the socialist COERCES some to redistribute their sustenance and redirect their labor for the benefit of others, to create an artificial, unsustainable equality--a collapse, if you will, of your spectrum into a dense black hole where there are no extremes, just the boring gray of an ant hill existence.
What about the socialist/marxist creaters and doers? For example, a lot of good art and music certainly came out of mother Russia.
The best art and music that came out of mother Russia was during its imperial, not communist, era. Marxist art is, to me, a blatant exaltation of the power of revolution of the masses. It makes godlike the proletarian who, in actuality, only serves an unimaginative and brutal ruling clique.
One could even argue that the "slacker" mentality in the US is a byproduct of the wealth from a free market society. Does that mean it's rooted in socialism? Seems a bit contradictory to me.
Slackers in a free market society don't have to be rooted in socialism. Never said that. I just have a negative view of them.
This is relative to your particular reference frame. Generally speaking, most of us don't have influence beyond ourselves, our family and perhaps our job. I expect my influence on history to be somewhat contained, although I am working hard to prove otherwise.
To view ourselves as a product of history is to see us as rather helpless--a PRODUCT predetermined by machinations beyond our control. This does fit the concept of the victim needing the intentional power of the history making Leviathan to protect and succor him.
I like what De Sousa says about what is uniquely American--here more than anywhere else, you have the freedom to make yourself what you wish. You are not trapped into a particular tradition or social class or occupation if you CHOOSE otherwise. And your INTENTION is not to influence history, but history will result from all our efforts (including yours, Spence). To the individualist, the capitalist, the conservative, history is the product. It is the record of our accomplishments, not the master that mashes us into a proletarian mold.
I have noticed you tend to look for differences where as I tend to look for similarities. This would make sense as I usually operate on a spectrum where you seem to go towards extremes.
I don't look for differences or similarities, I see them as they exist on the continuum of life. If you only LOOK for one, you miss the other. Does your spectrum only contain similarities? That seems rather extreme. It does conform to the socialistic, anti-individualistic view, though.
I'm not sure this has anything to do with ideology though, unless it's just validation that I'm a centrist and you're perhaps on the fringe.
-spence
|