Political Compartmentalization/Failure

Started by RexFavilla

Replies
36
Posts
37
Page
1 / 2

Conversation

#1 •••

Recently ran into this excerpt on Brazilian politics by conservative Brazilian thinker Olavo de Carvalho:


"For someone to speak authoritatively about the communist movement, they must first have studied the following things:

The classics of Marxism: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong.

The most important Marxist philosophers: Lukács, Korsch, Gramsci, Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, Lefebvre, Althusser.

Main Currents of Marxism, by Leszek Kolakowski.

Some good history and sociology books about the revolutionary movement in general, such as Fire in the Minds of Men, by James H. Billington, The Pursuit of the Millenium, by Norman Cohn, The New Science of Politics, by Eric Voegelin.

Good books on the history of communist regimes written from a non-apologetic point of view.

Books by the most famous critics of Marxism, like Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, Raymond Aron, Roger Scruton, Nicolai Berdiaev and so many others.

Books about the communist strategy and tactics on their rise to power, about the underground activities of the movement in the West and chiefly about the "active measures" (disinformation, agents of influence), like those by Anatolyi Golitsyn, Christopher Andrew, John Earl Haynes, Ladislaw Bittman, Diana West.

The largest number possible of testimonies by former communist agents and militants who recall their experience in service of the movement or communist governments, such as Arthur Koestler, Ian Valtin, Ion Mihai Pacepa, Whittaker Chambers, David Horowitz.

High-value testimonies about human condition in socialist societies, like those by Guillermo Cabrera Infante, Vladimir Bukovski, Nadiejda Mandelstam, Alexander Soljenítsin, Richard Wurmbrand.

This is a reading program that can be accomplished in four or five years by a good student. I do not know, either in the Brazilian right or left, anyone, absolutely anyone, who has accomplished it.

There are so many people in this country wanting to give their opinion on the matter, almost always with an air of wisdom, and nobody, or practically nobody, willing to make the necessary effort to give any substance to their words.

No honest leftist will do it without forever renouncing their beliefs. No rightist, without acknowledging that they were presumptuous, a fool, and in many cases, a useful idiot – sometimes even more useful and more idiotic than the leftist masses.

The left thrives on exploiting ignorance, both its own and that of others. Wherever it exerts hegemony, the prevailing commandment is never to read the works of adversaries and critics, but to spread distorted and caricatured versions of their ideas and biographies, so that militant youth can hate them under the illusion of knowing them. Universities that profess to offer courses in Marxism excel at this point, bordering on pure and simple mind control.

The right wing, well, the right wing cultivates its own forms of self-deception, which I've already discussed at length in this very newspaper. Perhaps I'll return to the subject in another article."


This rings very true for me in America as well. The amount of young right-wing people I've talked to who are incredibly animated about the evils of Marxism and go into a borderline witchhunt mentality for 'commie ideas' have zero literacy about communism, neither it's central tenets, any detailed understanding of its history, or of its more recent evolution. His criticism of the left - that it only understands opposing ideas in caricature, is 100% true of the American right. It's also true of the left here - I think it might be even worse, because the number of young leftists I've met who are even capable of discussing actually Marxism or Marxist economics is vanishingly small, and they all believe in a cartoonish strawman of the opposition's beliefs.


I don't pretend to have worked my way through this exhaustive list, nowhere near it, but I have checked a few of those boxes. The fact that I've met vanishingly few people who have checked as many, people who self-identify as virulently pro- or anti-communism and have much more intense, extreme feelings about the matter than I do, is shocking and sad. Politics on both sides of the aisle has devolved into mere pantomime. Just a posture, just a slogan, just a brand, with little or no understanding of the underlying principles. Marxism has become a zombie movement, transforming into ever more absurd permutations of itself, divorced from the questions of material production and the grand arcs of history and utterly preoccupied with mundane cultural and psychological affairs. Counter communism has just evolved into a similar counter-posture, a circus. Trump has stepped into the ring and is eminently suited to be ringleader, but he didn't build the big top.


It's just striking is all, how our chattering classes, talking heads, and political leaders on both sides are utterly bereft of erudition, even real-life expertise, or any connection to reality. Politics is like a funhouse hall of mirrors, with no substance and no point. People are filled with vitriol and can't even articulate why. It's almost like politics doesn't even exist anymore; it's become a kind of guerilla marketing campaign or MLM scam where cynical players manipulate the masses so they can push crypto scams or beg for superchats.

Edit comment

#2 •••
@RexFavilla
For someone to speak authoritatively about the communist movement, they must first have studied the following things

I disagree with this premise. Watching a few modern debates on communism with decent debaters on both sides should be decent enough to get a broad overview of the relevant facts. Or reading a few credible secondary and tertiary sources.

Edit post

#3 •••
@Savant
I disagree with this premise. Watching a few modern debates on communism with decent debaters on both sides should be decent enough to get a broad overview of the relevant facts. Or reading a few credible secondary and tertiary sources.


Disagree heavily with this premise. Communism is a movement spanning multiple countries and generations, which has existed in countless iterations. Whether they are decent debaters are not is irrelevant. The limitations of their knowledge will necessarily transfer to the person extracting information from viewing the debate. The idea that such a phenomenon can be boiled down to a few relevant facts reveals a great deal of hubris. And anyone who gathers their opinions from such a debate and is convinced of one side and then reads any seriously Marxist work (or debates someone who has actually read one) will immediately notice the huge chasm between the weak understanding of the debaters and the seriousness of the actual foundation work. It's Pope's adage in action:


'A little learning is a dangerous thing;

Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:

There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

And drinking largely sobers us again.'


If both debaters are informed to the level which Olavo de Carvalho would prefer, the debate would be almost unintelligible to the common observer, as debates at a higher level of expertise necessarily need to rely on a denser presentation of ideas which the uninitiated won't have the context to parse. If they aren't, they are neither engaging with the extensive and complicated historical record, nor are they engaging with the foundational philosophy. They are like actors reciting lines, engaging with canned arguments that they've heard from someone else. The people watching would be judging them on form, there's a fundamental emptiness to the exercise. I think this mentality is a contributing factor to the absolute banality and idiocy of modern discourse. Everyone argues like a defense attorney, deploying arguments like moves in choreographed dance, engaging in intellectual dressage. It's completely isolated from the messiness of reality and the immense amount of work that must be put in to really understand complicated phenomena.

Edit post

#4 •••
@RexFavilla
Communism is a movement spanning multiple countries and generations, which has existed in countless iterations.

Sure but I can make authoritative statements about something without knowing everything about it. A few statistics about wealth or something in communist countries would be enough to speak authoritatively about whatever those statistics are measuring. Also if there's something pretty much every expert agrees on from either side, then you can say that pretty authoritatively.


I'm not sure if according to Olavo we can reliably know about anything. Yet humanity still makes progress on complex topics. Maybe the bar for authoritative is just extremely high, but then it's probably too high to be useful.

Edit post

#5 •••
@RexFavilla
Everyone argues like a defense attorney, deploying arguments like moves in choreographed dance, engaging in intellectual dressage.

And yet paying lawyers to argue is the most reliable system anyone has come up with to judge guilt vs. innocence.

Edit post

#6 •••
@Savant
Sure but I can make authoritative statements about something without knowing everything about it. A few statistics about wealth or something in communist countries would be enough to speak authoritatively about whatever those statistics are measuring. Also if there's something pretty much every expert agrees on from either side, then you can say that pretty authoritatively.

I'm not sure if according to Olavo we can reliably know about anything. Yet humanity still makes progress on complex topics. Maybe the bar for authoritative is just extremely high, but then it's probably too high to be useful.


It's not a question of knowing everything, but of knowing as far from nothing as possible. Take one of my hobbies for example. Wine. When you teach anything that interfaces with the infinitely complex real world, you need to engage in what is known as a pedagogical lie. The human brain needs to learn things from the outside in, memorizing broad categories and then refining them to specialize your knowledge of a topic.


In the beginning stages of this process, the knowledge you gain can cause you to make inaccurate conclusions with more confidence than if you were completely uninformed and approaching the topic with the proper level of epistemic humility. In wine circles, the people at this level are the dreaded wine snobs.


As an example, they have learned that Chardonnay is oaky, rich and heavy. This is a pedagogical lie. Many of Chardonnays are not - depending on slope exposure, latitude, altitude, climate, and élevage, the style can be rapier-thin, fresh, and highly acidic or dense, stony and closed in its youth, and many iterations in between. If I'm talking to somebody who knows nothing about wine yet has expressed a liking for racy, bright wine and ask them to try a Chablis, for instance, they have no preconceptions guiding them and will say 'okay, sure', then 'oh, wow, I really like that!'.


I've done the same to a wine snob, they will ask what grape it is, I say 'Chardonnay' and, faced with a false conception of what Chardonnay is, they will say 'oh, never mind, I don't like Chardonnay'. If they gained the surface-level understanding of wine a while ago and have developed a self-conception of being a 'wine person' around this, they will even be vehemently dismissive and refuse to consider the fact that they were wrong and might like this Chardonnay.


They know more than the complete neophyte, yet they are more wrong with more confidence - this is the meaning of Pope's paradox about knowledge. Skimming the surface is often more dangerous than never dipping a toe in when you're dealing with the real world - you develop incorrect, overly broad generalizations because you've only been exposed to that first level understanding, which is rife with pedagogical lies. You don't understand how much you don't know.


The same example holds for something like communism. Just as wine is as complex as the cultural legacies, geological landscapes, climate patterns, and biological evolution which has defined it, communism is an ideology which has gone through so many permutations and iterations in different cultures, places, and geopolitical and socioeconomic conditions that delving deeper into the subject quickly reveals the severe limitations of surface-level understanding that can be imparted in a brief lecture or debate.


And yet paying lawyers to argue is the most reliable system anyone has come up with to judge guilt vs. innocence.


Now for your example about lawyers. Lawyers are not interfacing with the real world. They are interfacing with a legal system, which is a human construct. They are arguing, for or against, the innocence or guilt of a party under law due to the nature of their actions. When it comes time for the trial to interface with reality, with the material world, a good lawyer does not do that. He brings in an expert to testify, because he recognizes the very fact that I pointed out - that sparring over the surface-level interpretations of very complex subject matter is not illuminating to anyone, and that to bring good information into the courtroom you need an interpreter of sorts who had put a lot of time and energy into discovering as much about the field in question as possible.


When it comes time to draft laws, the same thing happens - there is a recognition that there is a divorce between reality and the laws we make to govern how we interact with it, and that consultation is often necessary to conform the law to nature. And it is not the lawyer who determines the guilt or innocence, it is a jury, an uninformed jury. In a sense, the process of justice involves a fully uninformed jury watching superficially informed jurists argue while consulting deeply informed experts when the facts of the case touch on complex topics which are beyond the ken of anyone else in the room.

Edit post

#7 •••
@RexFavilla
It's not a question of knowing everything, but of knowing as far from nothing as possible.

So it's a sliding scale and you become more authoritative over time. I disagree with the extreme you started with, which was "meet this maximally high bar before you can speak authoritatively at all."


As an example, they have learned that Chardonnay is oaky, rich and heavy. This is a pedagogical lie. Many of Chardonnays are not - depending on slope exposure, latitude, altitude, climate, and élevage, the style can be rapier-thin, fresh, and highly acidic or dense, stony and closed in its youth, and many iterations in between.

So the problem wasn't not studying for years, it was being taught something technically false. I don't think you need multiple years to get a thorough understanding of wine. Like...you just corrected that misconception in a sentence.


When it comes time for the trial to interface with reality, with the material world, a good lawyer does not do that. He brings in an expert to testify, because he recognizes the very fact that I pointed out - that sparring over the surface-level interpretations of very complex subject matter is not illuminating to anyone, and that to bring good information into the courtroom you need an interpreter of sorts who had put a lot of time and energy into discovering as much about the field in question as possible.

Well, in a debate, both sides will be citing sources from experts. I think you could learn as much from a few decent debates as a jury could learn from a trial.

Edit post

#8 •••

Even when I was a moderate leftist I realised how utterly moronic Communism is.


It wants to blackmail equality where there is no way to force it. This very dumb premise leads to nearly all of its problems.


The far right are dangerously ignorant and violently racist if allowed to be.


The far left are violent and viscerally angry even if you are one of them. They don't understand unity and cohesion at all. The exact reason why islamists are able to coalition with antifa is because of how brainrotted antifa's core position is.

Edit post

The US is a definitively secular nation, founded on complete separation of the State and religion. The Left Wing of US realise this but don't realise that pure freedom requires as low tax and free access to guns as possible. The Right Wing of US don't realise that secular pure freedom means the LGBTQ+ and abortion agendas both end up in line with US's liberty-first ethos.

It is left-wing to be pro-life. You are backing poor babies being born at the inconvenience of the already-born. Go figure.

#9 •••
@GreatfulGoy
It wants to blackmail equality where there is no way to force it.


This is poetic, but I'd say it's closer to extortion than blackmail.

Edit post

#10 •••

All the talk about socialism v capitalism v communism is academic or misguided. Each system has problems and no country is one or the other. Most like us have capitalism with varying degrees of social safety nets. In the usa our spending aint much different than elsewhere but we have less safety net. Given our bloated military and health industry.


The talk about the systems is misguided cause its mostly reactionary and not discussing specific incremental changes to our system that aren't too much ideological but more practical such that abstraction talk is pointless

Edit post

#11 •••
@RexFavilla

See above

Edit post

#12 •••
@Shoresy

No. The speech policing is part of the blackmail.

Edit post

The US is a definitively secular nation, founded on complete separation of the State and religion. The Left Wing of US realise this but don't realise that pure freedom requires as low tax and free access to guns as possible. The Right Wing of US don't realise that secular pure freedom means the LGBTQ+ and abortion agendas both end up in line with US's liberty-first ethos.

It is left-wing to be pro-life. You are backing poor babies being born at the inconvenience of the already-born. Go figure.

#13 •••
@GreatfulGoy

It's only blackmail if the penalty of wrongthink is shame. If it's fines and jail, then it is extortion.

Edit post

#14 •••
@Shoresy

it's very much shame. A major difference I find between the left and right wing is that the left doesn't cognise its shame-culture aspects, the right always has and always will.


The Left sees shame itself as evil and this is central to something they bulldozed the entire therapy industry into caving into and accepting. The Right sees shame as neutral, at times its necessary at other times it isn't.


The weaponisation of shame while gaslighting the other side into thinking shame is evil of them to do to sluts (while shaming virgins), gays (while shaming straight men), pro-choice stance and abortion clinics (while treating pro-life institutions similarly as well as basically anything right wing) so on and so forth... I mean the most clear cut example is critical race theory's approach to white people vs what they demand others to never see and approach black people as.


Almost every facet of what the Left is achieving is hypocritical gaslighting at an institutional level where your life is ruined if you're the wrong type of shamer for the wrong things yet shame is very much what they do to ruin one's life.

Edit post

The US is a definitively secular nation, founded on complete separation of the State and religion. The Left Wing of US realise this but don't realise that pure freedom requires as low tax and free access to guns as possible. The Right Wing of US don't realise that secular pure freedom means the LGBTQ+ and abortion agendas both end up in line with US's liberty-first ethos.

It is left-wing to be pro-life. You are backing poor babies being born at the inconvenience of the already-born. Go figure.

#15 •••
sluts (while shaming virgins)


I never quite understood virgin shaming, but apparently, it happens everywhere, not just on left. there are worse things than a virgin man, and one should keep that in mind before doing virgin shaming.

Edit post

#16 •••

It's probably more helpful to study the actual policies of communist countries.


And sure, at greater length than "they starved people to death and persecuted Christians", surveying a fairly broad range of regimes as opposed to just the worst ones like the Khmer Rouge or the USSR at its absolute worst moments. But my point is, if you have lofty Marxist theories that something like two dozen dedicated Marxist states with zero internal opposition never attempted to put into practice, there's little use describing Marxism as being the sum of said theorizing. Political religions, like theological ones, are the sum of what their followers make of such. You could just as well try to boil down "Protestantism" in its entirety to the tracts and manifestos of Calvin and Zwingli, or the confessions produced by 16th and 17th century state churches, as opposed to the lived religion of a billion worshipers around the world today, who are members of diverse denominations and who by and large have never read such.

Edit post

#17 •••

This country is quickly becoming Brazil. Trump is a textbook caudillo (which is why MAGA is not WASP at all but that's another story), gig economy/hustle culture instead of careerism, machoism. Northwest European culture has never been at an all-time low like it is now

Edit post

#18 •••
@Dr.Franklin

I think the world as a whole has become more retarded. Its not just USA. Europe too became retarded. After covid, everything became a lot worse everywhere. I dont think smart people trust in politics at all anymore.


If a lot of people trust some politician, it just means politician is skilled liar.


"But he is different" - yeah, he is a better liar.


the world has become so fake that I am really starting to believe NPC conspiracy theory, and a lot of conspiracy theories in past which to me seemed insane now suddenly begin to make sense.



The NPC (Non-Player Character) conspiracy theory posits that

a significant portion of the human population lacks consciousness, internal monologue, or true free will, functioning instead as "background characters" or "empty vessels" in a simulated reality. It suggests only some people are sentient "players," while others follow pre-programmed behaviors.

Edit post

#19 •••
@SatanLucy

These are just how average people act and always have. The average American cannot read at the seventh grade level.

Edit post

#20 •••
@Dr.Franklin

What's up Doc?


The below average American votes Trump.


Though that would depend on what average you are measuring.


If you are measuring stupidity, then 50% of Americans were above average...Or below average...Or vice versa perhaps, if it was a measure of rationality.


Then there is programmed bias to take into consideration...Most Americans are preconditioned to vote either republican or democrat without a second thought for the ideology that they are voting for...Reading for most is irrelevant...So it's left to the the above average seventh grader to consider the implications and swing the vote...Though why a bloke who cannot read or converse at 1st grade level became President is something of an enigma...Well it's not really, because the contrived and inherently corruptible system of voting is capable of electing a chimp into The White House.


Top of the morning to ya Doc.

Edit post

#21 •••
@SergeantLynch
The below average American votes Trump.


This is objectively false as a generality, as the people protecting stupid people in the US from the Save Act on the basis that the Save Act disenfranchises stupid voters are the very same people who refused to vote for Trump. Unless you are even a deeper level of stupid and believe Democrats actually want to create more Trump voters. It may also be the case that Democrat leaders can get on camera and declare their voters to be too stupid to get the same ID you would need to get a job, government benefits, or a bank account, and get away with it because many of their less-than-educated voters can't understand English well enough to know when they are being insulted.


If the Save Act debate settled one thing, it's where the plurality of the stupid/lazy voters REALLY are.

Edit post

#22 •••
@Shoresy

Yep, like I stated most Americans vote for who they were programmed to vote for.


To a large extent that sort of voting bias has disappeared in the UK...You still get dyed in the wool Labour and Conservatives...Though with reform becoming prominent there's a new pseudo-nationalist mix of the two...Led by Farage of course...Trumps lick arse.


And clever and stupid are as clever and stupid do...Clever Stupid...Yin and Yang...You and I at times no doubt.


Then there is the Monarchy and it's associated Aristocracy who oversee the show and to whom the military is primarily loyal to.


So how does Canada function...Outwardly, always seems reasonably efficient...Not sure how problematic those Northern pseudo-indigenes are though...Probably cool and content on snowmobiles and a blubber rich diet.

Edit post

#23 •••
@SergeantLynch

Canada is no longer a defined nation. It's more like an economic zone. Which the UK may also become if it resists nationhood.


Yep, like I stated most Americans vote for who they were programmed to vote for.


Also, the non-Americans. They vote for the politicians who stand and clap for invaders and sit and scowl for Americans. Hence, the Save Act debate.

Edit post

#24 •••
@Shoresy

True...It too used to be defined by Anglo-European overlords.


Not sure what it means to be British these days, I prefer to think of myself as an Earthling. Though I have resided in progressively regressive Wales for quite a few years now. Progressively regressive, even though Wales is as "culturally" diverse as the rest of the UK.


Culture is as culture does I suppose.

Edit post

#25 •••
@SergeantLynch
Not sure what it means to be British these days


Historians have found that Liberace wasn't really gay, he was just very British.


IJCMU

Edit post

#26 •••
@SergeantLynch

The below average American doesn't even vote, and yeah people don't think, read, whatever

Edit post

#27 •••
@Dr.Franklin

What's the average Doc?


And do you assume that you are above it?

Edit post

#28 •••
@Sidewalker

Yes Britishness was very much a broad European multi-mix...Now it's more global.



Liberace...Travesty or enigma.?


Enigmatic travesty perhaps.


Though America must take the credit.



IJCMU...IHGAC

Edit post

#29 •••
@SergeantLynch
IJCMU...IHGAC


IJCMU - I Just Crack Myself Up



Edit post

#30 •••
@Sidewalker

I got the IJ bit.


Is IJCMU the new LOL.



Acronymic-speak is a good way of extending freedom of speech and expression, until we are eventually implanted and loose freedom of thought and expression altogether.

Edit post