07-17-2024, 02:53 AM
I'll kick things off with more facts about men that I learned:
academic garbage
in which benji posts things nobody else cares about |
07-17-2024, 02:53 AM
I'll kick things off with more facts about men that I learned:
2 users liked this post: Nintex, DavidCroquet
07-17-2024, 07:30 AM
https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/3/1/232 wrote:We identify seven points of similarity between the church’s attitude toward those thought to espouse incorrect beliefs and the moral-based critiques of ideas coming out of institutions of higher education. First is the assumption that if an idea is deemed wrong, it can actually infect and harm the larger public, and that is why it must be vigorously purged and silenced. Second, aside from the notion that thoughts require censoring, their authors have to be likewise denounced, disciplined, and, if necessary, exiled from the community (excommunication). The church sought to expel malefactors, and this action protected others from influence and contagion that could spread from ideas or from the people who proposed them.66 Third, the church was most interested in identifying those within whose beliefs were faulty. Christian writers have a standard trio of those requiring correction—heretics, pagans, and Jews—but the first was considered the most dangerous,67 and the effort dedicated to identifying and rooting out deviant Christian belief is attested by the number of heresy catalogues that were written at this time.68 The church was committed to purging itself. Fourth, church criticism lacked humor. Salvation and damnation were serious matters, and when Christian authors issued condemnations, even from clerics who were well-trained in the art of traditional invective, their brutality was to underscore the danger at hand. Quote:However one may assess the progress made by institutions in vanquishing racism and inequality in higher education, we point out that, similar to a religion predicated on exclusion that suddenly finds itself a central player in the game, moralist academic discourse faces a nettlesome strategic problem now and in the future: in order to maintain its position, the injustice and suffering can never end. To acknowledge any progress runs counter to the interests of moralism; therefore, developing new behavioral strategies to underscore ongoing suffering is key to the continuation of moralism and its strength. The success in presenting the hardship of individuals through, for example, “intersectionality”—the conjoining of multiple harms and grievances on one body—is, in fact, not new. It bears a striking resemblance to the ways in which the early medieval church fathers promoted the view that Christians must continue to count themselves as martyrs after imperial patronage and largesse had replaced persecution. Quote:Christianity’s growth into a popular religion by the end of the fourth century and the dominant one by the sixth entailed two key consequences. One, it was not exclusive like before and membership was therefore no longer exceptional. The occasion of the first brought about the second: as Christians began to look a lot like everyone else, some adherents began searching for ways to distinguish themselves as better and more disciplined believers who demonstrated their “specialness” through purity.
3 users liked this post: Uncle, Potato, DavidCroquet
1 user liked this post: Propagandhim
07-21-2024, 06:22 PM
100%
Fifty year old paper: The Study of International Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows: Theories of the Radical Right and the Radical Left
Quote:20. Means can only be judged in conjunction with the character of those who use them. Quote:In line with this reasoning analysts of the right interpret the history of the cold war as a series of defeats and lost opportunities brought on by the lack of intestinal fortitude in the Free World. Unwillingness in 1945 to take a tough stand against Soviet expansion triggered the cold war. In Korea, the West failed to gain the military initiative owing to wholly unfounded fears of general war; the U.S.S.R. was not prepared in 1950-51 to risk World War III. The West's "supine" acceptance of Soviet penetration of the Middle 'East— Czech arms shipments to Egypt in 1955 should have been seized—was followed by even worse folly. The United States forced the British and French to withdraw from the Suez operation, and the Soviets won the "credit" for rattling their missiles at London and Paris. Hungary was simultaneously sacrificed by the West's unwillingness to take "modest risk." Quote:Radical left support for a just war doctrine emerges most clearly in the recent debate among "peace researchers," that is, social scientists who study violence. Until recently there was a widespread consensus that control and reduction of violence were the practical goals of peace research. A fairly sizeable group on the left now argues that a false equation of peace with the absence of violence merely supports an intolerable status quo. A few even assert that their "science" permits them to identify the appropriate targets of violence. Moreover, by emphasizing the concept of "structural violence" the term violence has been stretched to encompass relationships within virtually any institution or nation which falls short of absolute egalitarianism. This would seem to support a program of abolishing all institutions, or at least opposing the status quo everywhere, by violence if need be, as none yet created by man meets this condition. In practice, however, the concept is usually limited to describing deficiencies in Western institutions, especially American ones, and to justifying revolutionary action against them. If "structural violence" is to be more than a slogan it should also encompass such institutionalized policies as the systematic suppression of ethnic or religious minorities, harassment and imprisonment of nonconforming artists and intellectuals, long-term sentences to "labor camps” where all but the hardiest are doomed, or use of capital punishment even for such relatively minor offenses as theft of state property or black market operations. Rarely, if ever, has a detailed analysis of structural violence been used to condemn, much less justify the use of force against the U.S.S.R., China, Cuba or other socialist states in which these are common practices. The status quo there is more commonly celebrated than condemned. A double standard is thus used to judge violence of the left and right. "The violence of revolutionary terror, for example, is very different from that of the White terror, because revolutionary terror as terror implies its own abolition in the process of creating a free society, which is not the case for the White terror. The terror employed in the defense of North Vietnam is essentially different from the terror employed in the aggression." The belief that revolutionary violence and terror are self arresting processes terminating in freedom must surely be taken as a metaphysical article of faith for, beyond a few examples such as the American Revolution, few propositions run counter to such impressive historical evidence. Quote:An especially ill-conceived effort of this type may be found in the recent work of William Eckhardt. His research instruments are well-suited to "discover" that favorable qualities (personal choice, freedom, insight, and conscience) are associated with the radical left, whereas bad ones ("unfreedom" and "inequality") are attributed to conservatism and positivism. This effort would merely be bad social science were it not for Eckhardt's claim of policy relevance for his findings. Arguing that peace researchers must "rethink" their position on nonviolence, he goes on to assert that we now know those against whom the use of violence is justified. Quote:Virtually any Soviet policy or action is deemed consistent with the theory. Put somewhat differently, it is hard to see what evidence would be required to raise serious doubts about the protracted war framework. Thus, when the Soviets threaten Berlin, invade Finland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia, or provide logistical support for the North Korean invasion of South Korea, one can quite properly cite these as evidence of Soviet aggressiveness. On the other hand, Soviet participation in international negotiation on some issue or another, trade with the West, or other normal forms of diplomatic intercourse are also cited as evidence in support of the theory.96 These actions are interpreted as a temporary period of cooperation and consolidation ("the zig-zag" theory) before the next phase of aggression, or as an indication that because the more naked forms of aggression may create too many risks at that point in time, the Soviets are switching emphasis to other instruments in their kit-bag of aggressive tools. The theory is irrefutable. Quote:But when it can be shown that an external undertaking has little relationship to markets or raw materials, and when it is undeniably clear that it is generating massive deficits rather than profits—the war in Vietnam is a prime example—then the radical argument takes another tack. In these circumstances, it is argued, the capitalist ruling class is willing to accept a loss in the short run to protect the integrity of the empire (presumably pursuing a domino-theory line of reasoning), and therefore, profits, for the long run. How do we know this? Because capitalists are by definition driven by the profit motive and because the ruling elite acts on the basis of rational calculation. Hence, the seemingly uncharacteristic policy undertaking is actually an integral part of a longer run plan. Q.E.D. Quote:The treatment of American policy on colonialism is especially instructive. How does one explain imperialist America's policies when they seem to support nationalist movements against colonialism? The United States allegedly eased the British out of the Middle East in order to gain control of the oil resources there. But how does this square with the consistent support Washington has given Israel, a negligible factor in the oil industry and the common enemy of virtually all petroleum-exporting nations in the area, since 1948? By asserting (but not taking the trouble to demonstrate) that Washington has skillfully maintained a tension ridden status quo in the area by alternating support for the Arab nations and Israel. That this answer bypasses many inconvenient questions is apparently no source of embarrassment. Quote:Again, it is very difficult to imagine the types of policies that would cause the radical left analysts to question and perhaps discard the theory of capitalist imperialism. Thus, what its advocates would claim as a major virtue of the theory—that it is able to encompass and integrate all foreign policy behavior into a coherent pattern—must be regarded by less passionately committed observers as a fatal flaw. A theory that is impervious to apparently contradictory evidence and is, therefore, incapable of falsification simply fails to meet a basic requirement of explanation.No idea if text is preferred to PDF screenshots, figured it was here since I did that much longer chunk but I don't know what would be preferred. Or that anybody cares enough to actually have a preference. Obviously not everything is perfectly OCR'd so sometimes screenshot is just far easier.
1 user liked this post: Potato
07-31-2024, 01:02 AM
Text is always better, especially on screens.
Still didn't read. lol. Spoiler: (click to show)
07-31-2024, 05:53 AM
I've mentioned before that reading Lenin reminds me so much of our online social justice "activists" so this one was pretty amusing: Lenin and the Total Critique of Society A Study in Ideological Activism
Quote:Lenin countered with the following arguments: The essence of Marxist socialism, as distinct from earlier nonpolitical socialist movements, is emphasis on the political struggle. This Marxist struggle is revolutionary, directed against the whole of contemporary society and to the seizure of total power by the proletariat. The political struggle requires a political party to join all partial and local discontents into a comprehensive rejection of the present order. The "acceptance" of the present order as the basis for reform is not revolutionary but liberal, bourgeois thinking. The workers must use reforms solely to advance their organized strength. All discontents should be generalized, all kinds of opposition against the present order should be supported. Instead of attempting to reform existing society, the Marxist political struggle for the socialist society should pursue its ultimate goal by way of an intermediate minimal program. This minimal program should be the attainment of democracy. Once democracy is won, it will offer opportunities for the continuation of the proletarian political struggle with more effective means. Quote:For Lenin, the struggle as such was the only reliable pattern. Any acceptance of "order" or temporary accommodation to things as they are was a betrayal of the revolution and of the ultimate truth. The struggle itself can remain real only by constantly renewed hostility. It does not require particular forms, either legal or illegal, so long as the will to destroy is manifested in some active way. A revolutionary force can have its being only in ceaseless conflict with the existing order, and only a revolutionary force can carry history forward to the "final end." Since true human order is not possible in the present class-divided situation, the reality of human existence is vested in that social force which can never be induced to give up the struggle. Any failure to keep moving, any reconciliation with the forces and institutions of the present amount to a betrayal of true being. In this sense, to resign one's revolutionary activism to the "processes of development" is the way to lose oneself in nonbeing, and the way to stay in being is to keep the struggle alive in open militancy. Quote:This government of the people and for the people, however, was not to be a formal democracy but a dictatorship, "rule based on force." Lenin's insistence on this point is most revealing. At the Third Party Congress Lenin defined dictatorship as "the organization not of 'order,' but the organization of war."' He thought of society as "war" even when the "overwhelming majority" of the people are the rulers. Lenin could conceive of no elements of "order" even in a society in which the people, having driven away their oppressors, are no longer subject to alien wills. The only explanation to make sense of Lenin's position is that he is here dealing with the bourgeois-democratic period in which, by definition, there: can as yet be no socialism. In other words, the concept of "order" is out of place anywhere except in a fully socialist society. Any other society, on Lenin's showing, represents not "order" but rather "war. Quote:Lenin's counterarguments are conceptually confused, perhaps even deliberately muddled. This much emerges clearly: the real issue is not democracy (majority vs. minority) but class struggle (exploiters vs. exploited). Formal democracy is merely a bourgeois window dressing for bourgeois rule that is actually arbitrary and dictatorial. Moreover, as the state is everywhere an instrument of violence practiced by one class against another, it is futile to expect a peaceful "development" from bourgeois power to proletarian majority rule. History makes its major changes not by "development" but by "leaps," and such a revolution is violent in its very essence. Violence is characteristic not merely for a brief emergency but for the indefinite period intervening between capitalism and socialism. During this period the proletariat is continuously threatened by its enemies who after the proletarian seizure of power become more dangerous than they had been. The success of the revolution therefore requires that the proletariat organize its rule as a ruthless struggle to be continued until all its enemies are eliminated and a return to exploitation is no longer possible. Quote:The result is a doctrine of the proletarian state that consists of the manipulation of paradox slogans rather than of instructive concepts. Lenin's handling of this problem left a legacy of confusion between the Revolution's promise of freedom and its resolve to amass power in order to defeat its enemies. Lenin's own ideas are nowhere stated as such. Still, it may be surmised that, as he did not succeed in reconciling the classic formulae with his notions, everything that is not Marx and Engels represents his own position. Lenin then stands for a "revolutionary government" in the Jacobin sense, a regime of force unlimited by law and rights, and ruthless class struggle continued for a period of indefinite duration. Quote:The inherent reasonableness of socialism will in time make socialists of a growing number of people regardless of their economic position. Eventually, socialists will constitute the vast majority of the voters. Where the government is derived from universal suffrage, a political consensus for socialism constitutes a real force by which political control can be won and on which a new public order can be founded. The proletariat will acquire the necessary political maturity and comprehension of modem social problems as it participates in political decisions. Quote:Lenin found these assumptions unacceptable: the reason of the proletariat would not tend to embrace socialism. In What Is To Be Done? Lenin had noted that the proletariat by itself was capable only of "trade-union consciousness," that is, of the intent to improve its position within the existing order. For Lenin such bread-and-butter thinking was incompatible with "revolutionary consciousness," with the will to destroy the present system in ordeir to replace it by a wholly new society. He could not accept Kautsky's reprimand that the Soviets had "arbitrarily" excluded not only capitalists but other proletarian parties of various socialist persuasions. In Lenin's view there was no other socialist party besides his own; all others had been convicted by him of "opportunism," "petty-bourgeois vacillation," and "liberalism" - of lack of revolutionary consistency. On this showing, other proletarian parties were objectively servants of the bourgeoisie and traitors to the Revolution - an epithet which Lenin applied to Kautsky himself. Lenin, moreover, assumed that the proletariat would constitute a majority only in combination with the peasants who, subject as they were to "petty-bourgeois vacillations," would not be "consistently revolutionary." Quote:Kautsky succeeded in conceiving of such a political order and Lenin did not. Kautsky did envisage that the Revolution would culminate in a regime founded on the community of reason and devoted to justice, in which the shared notion of the common good would unite people in trust, friendship, and peace. Lenin, addressing himself to the same problem, had the concept not of a political order but of a battle order, an association mainly for the elimination of enemy forces. Lenin rejected the premises as well as the fruits of a political order. In place of the community of reason, he assumed ubiquitous danger, suspicion, mutual animus to destroy or be destroyed. Instead of peace and friendship, he looked for victory. Dictatorship as a principle of government rather than a passing emergency condition, is, as Lenin himself had stated, the "organization of war," an arrangement benefitting a world of perennial hostility. Quote:Lenin discarded the proletariat as a reliable social force, distrusted "developments," and discounted the efficacy of the popular appeal of socialism. He saw only two realities: the organized force of the communist "Vanguard" and the power of the bourgeoisie. There will be order in the future society but the transcendent principle of order is not represented by any existential factor in present society. At present, all is chaos, or alienation, or comprehensive hostility. The principle of order thus is now entirely confined to the mind of those who have knowledge of the future society. If order is real in the sense that chaos is unreal, then nothing outside of the small band of fighters for the future now can have title to reality. Quote:In rejecting this idea as a "revolutionary phrase," Lenin seemed to imply that he believed neither in the proletariat nor in the power of the spirit. But Lenin was far from discounting spiritual factors in history. In his view, however, the spirit was then doing battle for the "ideological resistance" of capitalism. The "traditions of the old society," the "force of habit" of millions and tens of millions is a "very terrible force." The spirit of this majority is strong but hostile. Only the infinitesimally small "Vanguard" is detached in its thinking, "independent," shaped entirely by the new society, and thus "consistently revolutionary." The guarantee of its purity, moreover, is not any proletarian existence but the correctness of socialist theory which in turn requires constant critical vigilance of the leaders. But purity of revolutionary intent will not permit this Vanguard to prevail, in spite of the decrees of history, if the Party does not attach to itself the immense power of noncommunist masses. These masses are not to be won, as the Vanguard is, by the explanation of the world in the light of Communist ideas. Psychologically they must be maneuvered into "battle positions" that permit further advances of the Communist forces. Hostile elements must be confused, vacillating ones made firm in their support of the Party. Quote:The Left Communists agreed with Lenin that the prevailing system is no order, no community, no source of obligation. In the sense in which chaos is unreal and order real, the bourgeois regime is wholly unreal and reality is found only in the future society of the proletariat. But as the proletariat had achieved cohesion sufficient to wrest control from the bourgeois rulers, how should it act? Quote:In the course of his various polemics Lenin rejected all ideas of any reality which, if accepted as such, would bestow a semblance of order on the present-day society. He radically denied any possibility of order apart from the socialism of the future. In the chaos of the present, only the foundation of power preparatory of the future can be considered an island of order, and only for those whose intellectual eyes can behold the distant future's gleam. This reduced the extant representation of future reality to the Communist power, the power that was in Lenin's own hands. Quote:Lenin's problem was to find a principled answer to the question "What is to be done?" The dogmatic basis of his answer was Marx's total critique of present-day society coupled with total endorsement of a future socialist order. Thus all intermediary ends were to be judged by their instrumental relation to the future socialism as the "final end." Lenin felt that "revolutionary theory" constituted a rational theory of action providing reliable principles for all situations. He was always scornful of his opponents for their "unprincipled" ways of drifting with events. Quote:Lenin's position, however, had a result which he may not have desired. It destroyed any certain causal connection between present social factors and the future socialist reality. Lenin refused to rely on any factor other than class war. The fortunes of war are unpredictable; success is possible but so is defeat. An army fighting against bourgeois power and with its mind on future socialism cannot be said to represent that future in the sense of a necessary series of causes and effects. It is the future's representative only through its intent. Curiously enough, this is precisely the idea for which Marx and Engels assailed the utopian socialists. As Lenin eliminated all conceivable causal necessities linking the present with the future, the highest good was deprived of any present basis and receded into the rank of mere future possibilities. As far as present action was concerned, its sole content then became the Communist struggle as such. Party strategy came to be identified with the supreme good to which all intermediary ends must defer, and Party interest was elevated to Lenin's criterion of right action. "Is there such a thing as Communist ethics? Is there such a thing as Communist morality?" he asked rhetorically in 1920, and answered his own question: Quote:The "period of transition" has thus been gradually converted into "life as transition." All previous and present history is seen as a prolonged phase of preparation for something which in its final perfection recedes further and further into the future.
1 user liked this post: Potato
omg just discovered this in PowerToys: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/powertoys/text-extractor
Quote:This is a minimal optical character recognition (OCR) utility for Windows 10/11 which makes all visible text available to be copied. This is like some illegal shit at how well this works.
08-13-2024, 07:24 AM
I screenshot this because whatever communists published this back in 1973 used a format that way too often confounded the above beyond mere formatting issues. Alan Wolfe is apparently still alive.
Waiting for Righty: a Critique of the "Fascism" Hypothesis
1 user liked this post: Propagandhim
08-16-2024, 07:55 AM
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2712350 wrote:Like Eugene Genovese, Davis is impressed with the "intricate dialectic of dependence and independence" between the master and the slave, a process that results from the former's need to have his identity recognized in the eyes of the latter. In this situation it is the slave who the genuine potential for freedom, while the master becomes dependent upon the slave as the mirror of his affirmation. The slave can redeem his freedom, not through thought, the highest activity for classical philosophers, but through the self-actualizing processes of human labor. "Unlike the master," writes Davis, "the slave is not a consumer who looks upon 'things' as merely the means of satisfying desires, The products he creates become an objective reality that validates the emerging consciousness of his subjective human reality."BOOM ROASTED |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|