Critique of liberal ideology

[Mister D]

This may generate some interest.
In “Critique of Liberal Ideology,” Alain de Benoist uses the term “liberalism”
in the broad Europe an sense of the term that applie s not just to American
liberalism but even mor e so to American libertarianism and mainstream
conservatism, insofar as all thre e share a common history and common
premises .—Transl.


Not being the work of a single man, liberalism was never presented in
the form of a unified doctrine. Various liberal authors have, at times,
interpreted it in divergent, if not contradictory, ways. Still, they share
enough common points to classify them all as liberals. These common
points also make it possible to define liberalism as a specific school of
thought. On the one hand, liberalism is an economic doctrine that tends to
make the model of the self- regulating market the paradigm of all social
reality: what is called political liberalism is simply one way of applying the
principles deduced from these economic doctrines to political life. This
tends to limit the role of politics as much as possible. (In this sense, one
can say that “liberal politics” is a contradiction in terms.) On the other
hand, liberalism is a doctrine based on an individualistic anthropology, i.e.,
it rests on a conception of man as a being who is not fundamentally social.


These two characteristic features, each of which has descriptive and
normative aspects (the individual and the market are both described as
facts and are held up as models), are directly opposed to collective
identities. A collective identity cannot be analyzed in a reductionistic way,
as if it were the simple sum of the characteristics possessed by the
individuals of a given community. Such an identity requires the
collectivity’s members be clearly conscious that their membership
encompasses or exceeds their individual being, i.e., that their common
identity is a product of this composition. However, insofar as it is based on
individualism, liberalism tends to sever all social connections that go
beyond the individual. As for the market’s optimal operation, it requires
that nothing obstruct the free circulation of men and goods, i.e., borders

must be treated as unreal, which tends to dissolve common structures andvalues. Of course this does not mean that liberals can never defendcollective identities. But they do so only in contradiction to their principles.

http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/critique_of_liberal_ideology.pdf

[prometheus]

So let the rich have their cake, AND eat it too??

Do you not realize that inheritance money is not earned with skill?

Being a rich brat is not "years of hard work".

[Mister D]

So let the rich have their cake, AND eat it too??

Do you not realize that inheritance money is not earned with skill?

Being a rich brat is not "years of hard work".

Dude, you have no idea what this essay is about. Post elsewhere if you cannot be bothered to move passed these utterly inappropriate and partisan responses. It's obnoxious.

[prometheus]

Dude, you have no idea what this essay is about. Post elsewhere if you cannot be bothered to move passed these utterly inappropriate and partisan responses. It's obnoxious.


Your obscure attacks on liberalism are far more obnoxious.

And speaking partisan, why don't you also include a defense of liberalism?

[Calypso Jones]

There is no defense of liberalism. no more. Maybe for a brief time but that is long gone now.

[URF8]

Liberalism has changed. It now stands for collectivism.

[Mister D]

Your obscure attacks on liberalism are far more obnoxious.

And speaking partisan, why don't you also include a defense of liberalism?

What's obscure about it? What's an attack? What's partisan about it?

Idiot.

[prometheus]

What's obscure about it? What's an attack? What's partisan about it?


Idiot.

Calling me an idiot is gonna get you called inbred here pretty quick.

And only one of us is right.

[Kranes56]

Liberalism has changed. It now stands for collectivism.

No it doesn't. Liberalism stands for individualism in a social sense.

[URF8]

No it doesn't. Liberalism stands for individualism in a social sense.

Individualism in a social sense is like Colonel Sanders running a home for chickens. The concept is internally flawed.

[Mister D]

kathaariancode (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=423), let me know what you think. You're the only person who seems to have gotten passed the title.

[Mister D]

There are a lot of big words in there, AZ. Careful! :grin:

[AZFlyFisher]

Maybe if you didn't respond with "obnoxious" and "idiot" you would get better responses to the threads you start.

[Mister D]

Maybe if you didn't respond with "obnoxious" and "idiot" you would get better responses to the threads you start.

Most of the responses were lazy and the idiot in question was identified accurately.

[KC]

kathaariancode (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=423), let me know what you think. You're the only person who seems to have gotten passed the title.

When I can find the time to read the whole thing I'll let you know, but it seems interesting!

[Chris]

Benoist misconstrues liberalism--classical liberalism which links "American libertarianism and mainstream conservatism"--in the same way modern liberals do. Classical liberalism is not "a conception of man as a being who is not fundamentally social". Classical liberalism--libertarianism and conservatism--recognizes man's social nature and promotes voluntary interaction and exchange, as opposed to collective, coerced central planning, which by paragraph 3 of the OP seems to be Benoist's position. In short, he's a socialist.

[Kranes56]

Individualism in a social sense is like Colonel Sanders running a home for chickens. The concept is internally flawed.

Not really. Economics and social values, aren't linked. But they are important to finding said idegoly.

[Mister D]

Benoist misconstrues liberalism--classical liberalism which links "American libertarianism and mainstream conservatism"--in the same way modern liberals do. Classical liberalism is not "a conception of man as a being who is not fundamentally social". Classical liberalism--libertarianism and conservatism--recognizes man's social nature and promotes voluntary interaction and exchange, as opposed to collective, coerced central planning, which by paragraph 3 of the OP seems to be Benoist's position. In short, he's a socialist.

I expect more thoughtful replies from you, Chris, but I do understand that you have a history of responding to criticism like a religious fanatic. Anyway, the idea that Benoist is a "socialist" (that's a scare word for you) is patent nonsense. Please cite for me where Benoist supports "collective, coerced central planning". Let's start there. You point us to paragraph three. Where is this position given?

[Chris]

I expect more thoughtful replies from you, Chris, but I do understand that you have a history of responding to criticism like a religious fanatic. Anyway, the idea that Benoist is a "socialist" (that's a scare word for you) is patent nonsense. Please cite for me where Benoist supports "collective, coerced central planning". Let's start there. You point us to paragraph three. Where is this position given?

Paragraph 3 establishes he's a collectivist. Collectivists are socialist, they advocate central planning.

[Mister D]

No where does De Benoist advocate "collective, coerced central planning". Nor does De Benoist advocate "socialism". Thank you. Now we can deal with your false equivalence.

the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it: the Church has criticized the great emphasis placed on individualism rather than collectivism

the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state, as a political principle or system: the Russian Revolution decided to alter the course of modernity towards collectivism

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/collectivism

Only in the first sense could De Benoist be considered a collectivist and I would agree with that. So am I. What about it? De Benoist is a localist. I'm becoming one. I'll be back on Monday.

[Chris]

So I see we agree he's a collectivist, an anti-individualist. As we know, he's an anti-capitalist, thus a socialist. Now how else does the socialist give the group priority over the capitalist individual but through the central planning of elites of the state?

[Mister D]

So I see we agree he's a collectivist, an anti-individualist. As we know, he's an anti-capitalist, thus a socialist. Now how else does the socialist give the group priority over the capitalist individual but through the central planning of elites of the state?

Collectivistism, anti-individualism,and anti-capitalism do not necessarily entail socialism. Critics of capitalism come in more varieties than you might think. As for what socialists propose you should probably ask a socialist.

[Chris]

Collectivistism, anti-individualism,and anti-capitalism do not necessarily entail socialism. Critics of capitalism come in more varieties than you might think. As for what socialists propose you should probably ask a socialist.


Collectivistism, anti-individualism,and anti-capitalism do not necessarily entail socialism.

Didn't argue that. What I said was collectivism entails socialism.


Critics of capitalism come in more varieties than you might think.

Socialism comes im more varieties than you think.

[KC]

Didn't argue that. What I said was collectivism entails socialism.


Collectivism as a social predisposition is common in many Eastern countries. Are those countries also necessarily socialist?

[Chris]

Collectivism as a social predisposition is common in many Eastern countries. Are those countries also necessarily socialist?

I'd say so. I think I asked earlier how is collectivism established, enacted, imposed, but through central planning. Central planning is the key component of socialism.

As opposed to individualism by which governance is not centrally planned, but emerges from the interaction of individuals in society.

[Peter1469]

Some Asian nations do well with collectivism- it is part of their culture. Adding capitalism to collectivism turned China around. Of course now they have some massive economic bubbles to manage. But you aren't going to strip collectivism from them in two or even three generations if that.

[Deadwood]

Socialist drivel.

[Deadwood]

Some Asian nations do well with collectivism- it is part of their culture. Adding capitalism to collectivism turned China around. Of course now they have some massive economic bubbles to manage. But you aren't going to strip collectivism from them in two or even three generations if that.


But make note of this: There are no social welfare programs in China, no unemployment insurance, no worker's compensation, no welfare. There is basic medicare, but if you lose and arm on the job, you're screwed.

Collectivism at its worst.

[Chris]

Some Asian nations do well with collectivism- it is part of their culture. Adding capitalism to collectivism turned China around. Of course now they have some massive economic bubbles to manage. But you aren't going to strip collectivism from them in two or even three generations if that.

Capitalism + collectivism = social democracy, where collectivists manage capitalism through taxation and regulation, what's failing Europe while Obama follows them.

For the liberal version, seeking a new order, see Robert Reich's The Answer Isn't Socialism; It's Capitalism That Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-answer-isnt-socialism_b_1491243.html).

For a more conservative socialism, seeking a return to an old order, see Alain de Benoist and Charles Champetier's The French New Right In The Year 2000 (http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain9.html):
9. Against the Ruthless Pursuit of Current Economic Policies; For an Economy at the Service of the People

...Faced with arrogant wealth, which aims only at growing larger still by capitalizing on the inequalities and sufferings that it itself engenders, it is imperative to restore the economy to the service of individuals and their quality of life. The first steps should include: instituting, at an international level, a tax on all financial transactions, to canceling the debt of Third World countries, and drastically revising the entire system of economic development. Priority should be given to self-sufficiency and to the needs of internal, national and regional markets. There needs to be an end to the international system of the division of labor. Local economies must be freed from the dictates of the World Bank and the IMF. Environmental laws ought to be enacted on an international scale. A way has to be found out of the double impasse of ineffective governmental economies, on the one hand, and hypercompetitive market-oriented economies, on the other, by strengthening a third sector (partnerships, mutual societies, and cooperatives) as well as autonomous organizations of mutual aid based on shared responsibility, voluntary membership, and non-profit organizations.

[Trinnity]

Liberalism has changed. It now stands for collectivism.That's right. Classical liberalism is the school of libertarian thought. It supports capitalism, fiscal conservatism, and a hands off aproach with regard to social issues where the federal govt is concerned.

The form of liberalism practiced by progressives, liberals, democrats etc, is full on socialism with the ultimate goal being Marxism.

This is why this election is SO important.

[Mister D]

Didn't argue that. What I said was collectivism entails socialism.



Socialism comes im more varieties than you think.

I just said that collectivism does not entail socialism. You deny arguing that but then you say precisely that.

It very well may but you haven't demonstrated Benoist's socialism. You falsely equate collectivism with socialism.

[Mister D]

Some Asian nations do well with collectivism- it is part of their culture. Adding capitalism to collectivism turned China around. Of course now they have some massive economic bubbles to manage. But you aren't going to strip collectivism from them in two or even three generations if that.

All western societies were "collectivist" prior to the modern era and continued to be at least in part throughout the modern era. In any case, I doubt the Chinese desire to be stripped of their culture and traditions.

[Mister D]

Capitalism + collectivism = social democracy, where collectivists manage capitalism through taxation and regulation, what's failing Europe while Obama follows them.

For the liberal version, seeking a new order, see Robert Reich's The Answer Isn't Socialism; It's Capitalism That Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-answer-isnt-socialism_b_1491243.html).

For a more conservative socialism, seeking a return to an old order, see Alain de Benoist and Charles Champetier's The French New Right In The Year 2000 (http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain9.html):

Again, a critique of globalization, liberalism, or capitalism does not entail socialism nor could a return to archaic values be described as socialism but silly anachronisms seem to be made here frequently. Do you have any specific objections? Or do hysterical cries of "socialist!" amount to your argument?

[Mister D]

Collectivism as a social predisposition is common in many Eastern countries. Are those countries also necessarily socialist?

It's been the predominant form of political and social life throughout human history. Maybe socialism is just the natural state of affairs? :grin: Or maybe "socialism" has become for the American phony right what "fascism" has become for the left: a meaningless catch-all pejorative.

[Peter1469]

Capitalism + collectivism = social democracy, where collectivists manage capitalism through taxation and regulation, what's failing Europe while Obama follows them.

For the liberal version, seeking a new order, see Robert Reich's The Answer Isn't Socialism; It's Capitalism That Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-answer-isnt-socialism_b_1491243.html).

For a more conservative socialism, seeking a return to an old order, see Alain de Benoist and Charles Champetier's The French New Right In The Year 2000 (http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain9.html):

How do you plan to strip the thousands of years worth of collectivism out of the Chinese culture? Why would you want to?

[Peter1469]

All western societies were "collectivist" prior to the modern era and continued to be at least in part throughout the modern era. In any case, I doubt the Chinese desire to be stripped of their culture and traditions.

The colonization and creation of the US was by a strong individualist tradition. People fleeing the collectivism of the Old World.

[KC]

If China is an example of a bad collectivism, we may look to Japan for an example of good collectivism.

[Peter1469]

If China is an example of a bad collectivism, we make look to Japan for an example of good collectivism.

Japan is an example of good collectivism.

[Chris]

I just said that collectivism does not entail socialism. You deny arguing that but then you say precisely that.

It very well may but you haven't demonstrated Benoist's socialism. You falsely equate collectivism with socialism.

Rather what you claimed was "Collectivistism, anti-individualism,and anti-capitalism do not necessarily entail socialism." I didn't argue that (all three), only that collectivism entails socialism.


You falsely equate collectivism with socialism.

I've explained the connection. Explain how collectivism is established, legislated, imposed if not by socialist central planning.

[Peter1469]

A lot of collectivism is cultural, not imposed by government.

[Chris]

Again, a critique of globalization, liberalism, or capitalism does not entail socialism nor could a return to archaic values be described as socialism but silly anachronisms seem to be made here frequently. Do you have any specific objections? Or do hysterical cries of "socialist!" amount to your argument?


Again, a critique of globalization, liberalism, or capitalism does not entail socialism nor could a return to archaic values be described as socialism but silly anachronisms seem to be made here frequently.

Why do you respond to me as if I argued that? I have only argued collectivism entails socialism.


Do you have any specific objections?

To what?


Or do hysterical cries of "socialist!" amount to your argument?

Or is your reaction to a word driving you to hysterical argument?

In fact, where is your argument? So far all I've heard is you don't like it I called Benoist a collectivist.

[Chris]

How do you plan to strip the thousands of years worth of collectivism out of the Chinese culture? Why would you want to?

I didn't realize I planned to do that. I'd let them discover it themselves.

BTW, Lao Tzu and Confucius were individualists.

[Deadwood]

Reduced to its most simplistic, are not cities, or municipalities a form of collectivism?

[Chris]

A lot of collectivism is cultural, not imposed by government.

Explain, as I've only seen and considered collectivism as used as a politico-economic description.

[Chris]

Reduced to its most simplistic, are not cities, or municipalities a form of collectivism?

Well, I suppose, you could, but I would lay it out along a spectrum between individualism and collectivism and ask how much are individual rights respected versus how much power the collective has. The smaller the government the greater the liberty. Benoist as I cited him above is talking international.

[Chris]

That's right. Classical liberalism is the school of libertarian thought. It supports capitalism, fiscal conservatism, and a hands off aproach with regard to social issues where the federal govt is concerned.

The form of liberalism practiced by progressives, liberals, democrats etc, is full on socialism with the ultimate goal being Marxism.

This is why this election is SO important.

Besides collectivism/socialism, that's another term needing better definition.

The OP says
In “Critique of Liberal Ideology,” Alain de Benoist uses the term “liberalism”
in the broad Europe an sense of the term that applie s not just to American
liberalism but even mor e so to American libertarianism and mainstream
conservatism, insofar as all thre e share a common history and common
premises .—Transl.

So besides the fact we're reading a translation from the French, what liberalism is so broad as to include both European liberalism and US libertarian/conservative classical liberalism? Hayek does a good job in The Constitution of Liberty of distinguishing what he calls the French tradition, Rousseau, Condorcet, etc, that sought to tear down social traditions, and establish collectivism/socialism--from the English/Scottish tradition, Burke, Hume, Smith, Locke, Jefferson, Madison, etc, that sought maintain guidance of man's nature and social traditions and institutions, while protecting individual liberty from overbearing government. The translator's note indicates he if not Benoist doesn't see the difference.

[Mister D]

If China is an example of a bad collectivism, we may look to Japan for an example of good collectivism.

Very true.

[Mister D]

Why do you respond to me as if I argued that? I have only argued collectivism entails socialism.



To what?



Or is your reaction to a word driving you to hysterical argument?

In fact, where is your argument? So far all I've heard is you don't like it I called Benoist a collectivist.

Chris, collectivism does not entail socialism.

So you don't have any specific objections. You just have a vague notion that Benoist is a socialist. OK.

I have no problem with you calling anyone a collectivist. I'm a collectivist. I just think your knee jerk cries of "socialist!" are silly.

[Mister D]

Besides collectivism/socialism, that's another term needing better definition.

The OP says

So besides the fact we're reading a translation from the French, what liberalism is so broad as to include both European liberalism and US libertarian/conservative classical liberalism? Hayek does a good job in The Constitution of Liberty of distinguishing what he calls the French tradition, Rousseau, Condorcet, etc, that sought to tear down social traditions, and establish collectivism/socialism--from the English/Scottish tradition, Burke, Hume, Smith, Locke, Jefferson, Madison, etc, that sought maintain guidance of man's nature and social traditions and institutions, while protecting individual liberty from overbearing government. The translator's note indicates he if not Benoist doesn't see the difference.

Benoist is using the original meaning of liberalism and the meaning it still carries in Europe. If you were to ask a Frenchman to name a great liberal statesman from his lifetime he would likely say Ronald Reagan. Furthermore, he does not argue that they are exactly the same but that "all three share a common history and common premises".

[Mister D]

Rather what you claimed was "Collectivistism, anti-individualism,and anti-capitalism do not necessarily entail socialism." I didn't argue that (all three), only that collectivism entails socialism.

Yes, I argued that collectivism does not entail socialism. That claim is just patent nonsense. Was ancient Israel, for example, a socialist state? Medieval France? Are all traditional societies socialist? Chris, you're being silly.


I've explained the connection. Explain how collectivism is established, legislated, imposed if not by socialist central planning.


No, you haven't explained that at all. You claimed it existed. That's all. Anyway, have we not defined collectivism? It's not an establishment. It's not legislated. It's not imposed (again you claim coercion) It's a way of life and the predominant form of political and social life throughout human history. It's culture!

[Mister D]

A lot of collectivism is cultural, not imposed by government.

Exactly. Of course it is. Asking how collectivism is established is like asking how communities and social ties are established.

[Mister D]

Explain, as I've only seen and considered collectivism as used as a politico-economic description.

Right. That's probably why you are having so much difficulty with Benoist.

[Mister D]

The colonization and creation of the US was by a strong individualist tradition. People fleeing the collectivism of the Old World.

Who do you have in mind? While individualism is a strong component of Protestantism those fleeing the Old World built their own "collective" societies here. The individualist strain in American and western culture followed a relentless logic but it took centuries before we reached the state we are in now.

[Chris]

Chris, collectivism does not entail socialism.

So you don't have any specific objections. You just have a vague notion that Benoist is a socialist. OK.

I have no problem with you calling anyone a collectivist. I'm a collectivist. I just think your knee jerk cries of "socialist!" are silly.


Chris, collectivism does not entail socialism.

Ah, but it does. Collectivism requires central planning and central planning is the main key component of all socialist systems. You fail to address this, and instead go off into hysterics.

[Chris]

Benoist is using the original meaning of liberalism and the meaning it still carries in Europe. If you were to ask a Frenchman to name a great liberal statesman from his lifetime he would likely say Ronald Reagan. Furthermore, he does not argue that they are exactly the same but that "all three share a common history and common premises".

But then the translator is incorrect, because the French tradition in liberalism is distinctly different than the English/Scottish classical liberalism we inherited here. And it's the translator who notes what Benoist might mean, not Benoist.

[Mister D]

Ah, but it does. Collectivism requires central planning and central planning is the main key component of all socialist systems. You fail to address this, and instead go off into hysterics.

Collectivism requires no such thing. It's been defined. Again, no where does Benoist argue for central planning. In fact, Benoist favors decentralization! :rollseyes:

[Chris]

Yes, I argued that collectivism does not entail socialism. That claim is just patent nonsense. Was ancient Israel, for example, a socialist state? Medieval France? Are all traditional societies socialist? Chris, you're being silly.



No, you haven't explained that at all. You claimed it existed. That's all. Anyway, have we not defined collectivism? It's not an establishment. It's not legislated. It's not imposed (again you claim coercion) It's a way of life and the predominant form of political and social life throughout human history. It's culture!


So now you've denied the existence of the very collectivism Benoist clearly promotes.



I argued that collectivism does not entail socialism.

You have repeated your claim. You have not provided any argument for your claim nor against mine.

[Mister D]

But then the translator is incorrect, because the French tradition in liberalism is distinctly different than the English/Scottish classical liberalism we inherited here. And it's the translator who notes what Benoist might mean, not Benoist.

This has nothing to do with the translator. Again, he does not argue that they are exactly the same but that "all three share a common history and common premises".

[Mister D]

So now you've denied the existence of the very collectivism Benoist clearly promotes.




You have repeated your claim. You have not provided any argument for your claim nor against mine.

I have? Where? How?

You made the claim. You support it.

[Chris]

Right. That's probably why you are having so much difficulty with Benoist.

I cited earlier the centrally planned collectivism Benoist wants implemented politically, on up to the International level.

We're not discussing social cooperation here. Benoist's is a political argument against liberalism and for collectivism.

[Chris]

Who do you have in mind? While individualism is a strong component of Protestantism those fleeing the Old World built their own "collective" societies here. The individualist strain in American and western culture followed a relentless logic but it took centuries before we reached the state we are in now.

I see now you need to put scare quotes around collective. ""collective" societies" is a pleonasm as societies are by definition cooperative. Collectivism is not social cooperation, it's political/economic central planning, and that's what makes it not social but socialist.

[Mister D]

I cited earlier the centrally planned collectivism Benoist wants implemented politically, on up to the International level.

We're not discussing social cooperation here. Benoist's is a political argument against liberalism and for collectivism.


No, you haven't. Curbing the excesses of globalization and capitalism is not "centrally planned collectivism". Chris, how can a localist who favors decentralization be an advocate of central planning? :huh:

You really need to give up this Manichean worldview of yours.

[Mister D]

I see now you need to put scare quotes around collective. ""collective" societies" is a pleonasm as societies are by definition cooperative. Collectivism is not social cooperation, it's political/economic central planning, and that's what makes it not social but socialist.

I put it in quotes because I'm not quite sure what he means by the "collectivism of Europe". Puritans, for example, built a "collective" society here. So did other groups of Protestants. Peter can speak for himself. As for you, you're not making any sense at all. Were the English colonists fleeing a centrally planned England? Chris, how many gross anachronisms do you wish us to endure?

[Mister D]

So I see we agree he's a collectivist, an anti-individualist. As we know, he's an anti-capitalist, thus a socialist. Now how else does the socialist give the group priority over the capitalist individual but through the central planning of elites of the state?

BTW, here is what you said. It's nonsense.

[Chris]

No, you haven't. Curbing the excesses of globalization and capitalism is not "centrally planned collectivism". Chris, how can a localist who favors decentralization be an advocate of central planning? :huh:

You really need to give up this Manichean worldview of yours.


Curbing the excesses of globalization and capitalism is not "centrally planned collectivism".

And this will be done how? If not central planning then what, wishful thinking, sheer will power?

[Chris]

I put it in quotes because I'm not quite sure what he means by the "collectivism of Europe". Puritans, for example, built a "collective" society here. So did other groups of Protestants. Peter can speak for himself. As for you, you're not making any sense at all. Were the English colonists fleeing a centrally planned England? Chris, how many gross anachronisms do you wish us to endure?

I'm apparently making no sense to you, likely because you're hung up on the word socialism.

[Chris]

BTW, here is what you said. It's nonsense.

Anti-capitalism = socialist. As I've explained, collectivists employ central planning, and that's socialist. Collectivist is also anti-individualist but that doesn't imply socialist. You had claim I said all 3 implied socialism. I didn't.

[Mister D]

And this will be done how? If not central planning then what, wishful thinking, sheer will power?

What? Taxing financial transactions? Canceling Third World debt? Freeing local economies from the dictates of the IMF and Worldbank? What, Chris?

[Mister D]

Anti-capitalism = socialist. As I've explained, collectivists employ central planning, and that's socialist. Collectivist is also anti-individualist but that doesn't imply socialist. You had claim I said all 3 implied socialism. I didn't.

First of all, you now admit to arguing that. OK. I'm glad you're being honest now. None of those things in and of themselves = socialism. You're being silly.

So all societies that have practiced anything other than capitalism were/are socialist. Really?

[Mister D]

I'm apparently making no sense to you, likely because you're hung up on the word socialism.

I'm hung up on the word socialism!? :shocked:

[Chris]

What? Taxing financial transactions? Canceling Third World debt? Freeing local economies from the dictates of the IMF and Worldbank? What, Chris?

Yes, I cited those earlier. So once again I ask this will be done how? If not central planning then what, wishful thinking, sheer will power?

[Chris]

First of all, you now admit to arguing that. OK. I'm glad you're being honest now. None of those things in and of themselves = socialism. You're being silly.

So all societies that have practiced anything other than capitalism were/are socialist. Really?

Obfuscation is not an argument.

Collectivism implies central planning implies socialism.

And, yes, I think you're hung up on the word socialism--what exactly does it mean to you?

[Mister D]

Yes, I cited those earlier. So once again I ask this will be done how? If not central planning then what, wishful thinking, sheer will power?

I'd imagine the former two can be done at the state level and require no "central planning". Do you understand what that term means? The latter should just be done out of good will. Unfortunately, that's lacking which is sort of the problem, Chris.

[Chris]

I'd imagine the former two can be done at the state level and require no "central planning". Do you understand what that term means? The latter should just be done out of good will. Unfortunately, that's lacking which is sort of the problem, Chris.

Good will, iow, wishful thinking--OK, in that regard, B is not a socialist any more that wishful thinking Marx was.

States centrally plan.

[Mister D]

Obfuscation is not an argument.

Collectivism implies central planning implies socialism.

And, yes, I think you're hung up on the word socialism--what exactly does it mean to you?

Unfortunately, your insistence that you see socialism everywhere has severely hampered discussion. As long as you insist on this nonsense we're stuck here.

No, it does not. Collectivism has been defined. Please, be a little less prideful, would ya?

Socialism—defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production—was the tragic failure of the twentieth century. Born of a commitment to remedy the economic and moral defects of capitalism (http://thepoliticalforums.com/Capitalism.html), it has far surpassed capitalism in both economic malfunction and moral cruelty. Yet the idea and the ideal of socialism linger on. Whether socialism in some form will eventually return as a major organizing force in human affairs is unknown, but no one can accurately appraise its prospects who has not taken into account the dramatic story of its rise and fall.


http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html

[Mister D]

Good will, iow, wishful thinking--OK, in that regard, B is not a socialist any more that wishful thinking Marx was.

States centrally plan.

On a state by state basis. Why not? It's happened before. Better still, debts are largely forgiven every day in the US. So we may dismiss your claims of "wishful thinking" because 1) debt relief is a major international issue with many supporters and 2) it has already happened in some cases.

And Marx...lol

[Chris]

Unfortunately, your insistence that you see socialism everywhere has severely hampered discussion. As long as you insist on this nonsense we're stuck here.

No, it does not. Collectivism has been defined. Please, be a little less prideful, would ya?

Socialism—defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production—was the tragic failure of the twentieth century. Born of a commitment to remedy the economic and moral defects of capitalism (http://thepoliticalforums.com/Capitalism.html), it has far surpassed capitalism in both economic malfunction and moral cruelty. Yet the idea and the ideal of socialism linger on. Whether socialism in some form will eventually return as a major organizing force in human affairs is unknown, but no one can accurately appraise its prospects who has not taken into account the dramatic story of its rise and fall.


http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html



your insistence that you see socialism everywhere

I don't see it everywhere. Why invent straw men?


Collectivism has been defined.

As involving central planning. We've cited B's advocacy in that regard, from the status (national) to the International level.


Socialism—defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production...

One definition. But if you read the entire article you'll see it's about the demise of the socialistic theory of government control. Mises presented socialists the economic calculation problem and Hayek the problem of knowledge in society, and together they demonstrated that central planning where government had complete control wouldn't work, the socialists conceded in the 1990s. Today economics from Williamson's Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism to Hoppe's A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism replace government control of production with management of it through taxation and regulation and corruption. Not even socialists are for government control of production anymore: I earlier referenced socialist Robert Reicht's The Answer Isn't Socialism; It's Capitalism That Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-answer-isnt-socialism_b_1491243.html).

[Chris]

On a state by state basis. Why not? It's happened before. Better still, debts are largely forgiven every day in the US. So we may dismiss your claims of "wishful thinking" because 1) debt relief is a major international issue with many supporters and 2) it has already happened in some cases.

And Marx...lol

In Europe the state is the nation.

So B's wishes came true in some cases!

[Mister D]

I don't see it everywhere. Why invent straw men?

Pot, meet kettle You've been arguing a straw man for days now.


As involving central planning. We've cited B's advocacy in that regard, from the status (national) to the International level.



the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it: the Church has criticized the great emphasis placed on individualism rather than collectivism

the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state, as a political principle or system: the Russian Revolution decided to alter the course of modernity towards collectivism

http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...h/collectivism (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/collectivism)


http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/5598-Critique-of-liberal-ideology?p=125724&viewfull=1#post125724


Again, only in the first sense could Benoist be considered a collectivist.



One definition. But if you read the entire article you'll see it's about the demise of the socialistic theory of government control. Mises presented socialists the economic calculation problem and Hayek the problem of knowledge in society, and together they demonstrated that central planning where government had complete control wouldn't work, the socialists conceded in the 1990s. Today economics from Williamson's Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism to Hoppe's A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism replace government control of production with management of it through taxation and regulation and corruption. Not even socialists are for government control of production anymore: I earlier referenced socialist Robert Reicht's The Answer Isn't Socialism; It's Capitalism That Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-answer-isnt-socialism_b_1491243.html).

I'm really not interested in the whole article or in the "demise of the socialistic theory of government control", Chris. It has nothing to do with Benoist.

[Mister D]

In Europe the state is the nation.

So B's wishes came true in some cases!

What?

[Chris]

Let me know when you wish to discuss B's socialism, D. You're merely repeating your claims rather than arguing anything, I think in part because, as I said, you seem hung up on words like socialism and collectivism.

[Mister D]

Let me know when you wish to discuss B's socialism, D. You're merely repeating your claims rather than arguing anything, I think in part because, as I said, you seem hung up on words like socialism and collectivism.

I don't wish to go off on a tangent about socialism Chris. It's immaterial to a discussion of Benoist's views. Let us know when you can discuss alternative views without trying to slap a pejorative label on them.

[Chris]

As I said, you're hung up on words like socialist such that rather than reading it descriptively you read it pejoratively: "trying to slap a pejorative label on them".

[Mister D]

You're not even fooling yourself, Chris. Words mean things. When an otherwise intelligent person insists on using terms inappropriately and offers specious reasoning for doing so one can only suspect his motive is to defame rather than argue in good faith.

[Chris]

You're not even fooling yourself, Chris. Words mean things. When an otherwise intelligent person insists on using terms inappropriately and offers specious reasoning for
doing so one can only suspect his motive is to defame rather than argue in good faith.

Then don't do that, D.

[Mister D]

Then don't do that, D.

Chris, you aren't even fooling yourself.

[Chris]

Chris, you aren't even fooling yourself.

That's right, I'm not. Question is, why are you?

[Mister D]

That's right, I'm not. Question is, why are you?

Right. You're not. So I guess it's your pride acting up yet again. Instead of offering lame criticism try to actually engage an idea. It's a wide world out there, Chris. It's not just a choice between Chris and "socialism". :laugh:

[Chris]

Right. You're not. So I guess it's your pride acting up yet again. Instead of offering lame criticism try to actually engage an idea. It's a wide world out there, Chris. It's not just a choice between Chris and "socialism". :laugh:

:-0 yawn

[Mister D]

:-0 yawn

If you find it so boring why do you keep posting? Oh, that's right. Your pride. :wink:

[Chris]

And earlier, to quote you: "It has nothing to do with Benoist."

Didn't you want to discuss Benoist? Let's get back to him. Preface the following with Benoist is (was?) head of French think tank GRECE.


http://i.snag.gy/qINEp.jpg

From Where Have All The Fascists Gone? (http://books.google.com/books?id=OcaHOPaa0iMC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=benoist+rightwing+socialist&source=bl&ots=wgwy6YINPg&sig=KDFAUolIvybu4D02g375Hq4OBak&hl=en#v=onepage&q=benoist%20rightwing%20socialist&f=false)

[Mister D]

And earlier, to quote you: "It has nothing to do with Benoist."

Didn't you want to discuss Benoist? Let's get back to him. Preface the following with Benoist is (was?) head of French think tank GRECE.



From Where Have All The Fascists Gone? (http://books.google.com/books?id=OcaHOPaa0iMC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=benoist+rightwing+socialist&source=bl&ots=wgwy6YINPg&sig=KDFAUolIvybu4D02g375Hq4OBak&hl=en#v=onepage&q=benoist rightwing socialist&f=false)

What has nothing to do with Benoist? Socialism? Right. Was there a reason you cited this?

[Chris]

Little you're posting in this thread has to do with Benoist, more to do with shouting down any criticism of this swell guy.

Didn't read it, did you. It's about Benoist an his anti-Americanism, and his socialist and communist political stances.

[Mister D]

Little you're posting in this thread has to do with Benoist, more to do with shouting down any criticism of this swell guy.

Didn't read it, did you. It's about Benoist an his anti-Americanism, and his socialist and communist political stances.

We haven't been able to discuss Benoist because you couldn't let go of your vapid criticism. You still can't.

I appreciate Benoist's anti-Americanism and in some respects I agree with him. Oh, and as for his " socialist and communist political stances"...



While for GRECE Marxism and liberalism derived from the same materialist and egalitarian essence, liberalism is more dangerous because in its extreme egalitarianism it realizes theoretical Marxism more than the socialist countries themselves.

You should read your own citations.

"Better to wear the helmet of a Red Army soldier than to live on a diet of hamburgers in Brooklyn." Great line! :cool2:

[Chris]

I appreciate Benoist's anti-Americanism

So there you have it.

And why are you anti-American, D?

[Mister D]

So there you have it.

And why are you anti-American, D?


You don't like 'Murica'!? :rofl:

Ad hominem now, Chris? That's so..well typical. It's all you've emloyed here so far.

[Chris]

Ad hom? Where--besides your posts?

Again, why are you anti-American, D? Or do you appreciate Benoist's anti-Americanism but contradictorily don't share it?

[Mister D]

Ad hom? Where--besides your posts?

Again, why are you anti-American, D? Or do you appreciate Benoist's anti-Americanism but contradictorily don't share it?

D is anti 'Murican'! He's a socialist! :rofl:

[Mister D]

He's a pagan too, Chris!

D you're a Christian...how...how...it's just 'anti-Murican'! :laugh:

[Chris]

D is anti 'Murican'! He's a socialist!

He's a pagan too, Chris!

D you're a Christian...how...how...it's just 'anti-Murican'!

You're starting to babble as you get the picture.

http://i.snag.gy/qINEp.jpg

[Mister D]

What picture? That Benoist sees America as the champion of liberalism? :laugh: Chris, you don't think this is news do you?

You are consistently incapable of discussing ideas. Let me know when you are prepared to get beyond "socialist!" and "anti-Murican"!

[Chris]

lol

[Mister D]

Poor prideful Chris...:grin:

[AZFlyFisher]

Mister D,

Do you also agree with Benoist that racial intolerance may have its roots in monotheism and that a return to the ideals of Paganism would cure the ills of Western society?

[Mister D]

Mister D,

Do you also agree with Benoist that racial intolerance may have its roots in monotheism and that a return to the ideals of Paganism would cure the ills of Western society?

Many intellectuals have pointed to the racial intolerance inherent in Judaism but I'm not sure if Benoist comments on that. What Benoist does argue is that the insistence on absolute truths has and will inevitably manifest itself in intolerance. One certainly cannot deny that this has happened historically but, no, I don't think a revival of paganism is desirable let alone possible.

[AZFlyFisher]

Many intellectuals have pointed to the racial intolerance inherent in Judaism but I'm not sure if Benoist comments on that. What Benoist does argue is that the insistence on absolute truths has and will inevitably manifest itself in intolerance. One certainly cannot deny that this has happened historically but, no, I don't think a revival of paganism is desirable let alone possible.

You're not sure if he comments on it? :undecided: Why don't you read up a little on Benoist, then. He writes entire books about racial intolerance.

You might find GRECE interesting. :wink:

"De Benoist is one of the leading members of the French intellectual movement 'Groupement de Reserche et d'Etudes pour la Civilisation Européenne' (GRECE), whose meetings are advertised in Nouvelle Ecole. GRECE represents an amalgam of French Right-wing intellectuals. Foremost among the ideas propagated by GRECE is the notion that different races have different sorts of intelligence; it also promotes an interest in eugenics.

GRECE has some extremely influential supporters in France. For instance the director and editor of the national newspaper, Figaro Dimanche - Louis Pauwels and Patrice de Plunkett - are supporters; they are also on the editorial committee of Nouvelle Ecole. GRECE actively disseminates the ideas of Jensen and Eysenck; its publishing company, Copernicus, has recently brought out French editions of Eysenck's books The Inequality of Man and Race, Intelligence and Education."

http://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/othersrv/isar/archives2/billig/chapter5.htm

The White Supremists love him!

He also opposes Christianity as "inherently intolerant, theocratic and bent on persecution."

You probably haven't even read what he's written about liberalism besides what you've added to your signature.

"What needs to be retained from liberalism is the following; the idea of freedom accompanied by the sense of responsibility; the rejection of rigid determinism; the importance of the notion of autonomy; the critique of statism; a certain tendency towards republicanism, anti-Jacobinism and anti-centralism."

Really, Mister D, get informed before you continue to post and embarrass yourself further.

[Mister D]

You're not sure if he comments on it? :undecided: Why don't you read up a little on Benoist, then. He writes entire books about racial intolerance.

You might find GRECE interesting. :wink:

"De Benoist is one of the leading members of the French intellectual movement 'Groupement de Reserche et d'Etudes pour la Civilisation Européenne' (GRECE), whose meetings are advertised in Nouvelle Ecole. GRECE represents an amalgam of French Right-wing intellectuals. Foremost among the ideas propagated by GRECE is the notion that different races have different sorts of intelligence; it also promotes an interest in eugenics.

GRECE has some extremely influential supporters in France. For instance the director and editor of the national newspaper, Figaro Dimanche - Louis Pauwels and Patrice de Plunkett - are supporters; they are also on the editorial committee of Nouvelle Ecole. GRECE actively disseminates the ideas of Jensen and Eysenck; its publishing company, Copernicus, has recently brought out French editions of Eysenck's books The Inequality of Man and Race, Intelligence and Education."

http://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/othersrv/isar/archives2/billig/chapter5.htm

The White Supremists love him!

He also opposes Christianity as "inherently intolerant, theocratic and bent on persecution."

You probably haven't even read what he's written about liberalism besides what you've added to your signature.

"What needs to be retained from liberalism is the following; the idea of freedom accompanied by the sense of responsibility; the rejection of rigid determinism; the importance of the notion of autonomy; the critique of statism; a certain tendency towards republicanism, anti-Jacobinism and anti-centralism."

Really, Mister D, get informed before you continue to post and embarrass yourself further.

:smiley_ROFLMAO:Is it me, folks? He asks me an ignorant question about this author and I decide to be civil even though he doesn't deserve civility. How does he respond? He attacks me. :rollseyes:

No, AZZ, I'm not sure if he connects racial intolerance to monotheism. That's what you asked remember? Secondly, you decry his racism after claiming he connects racism to monotheism yet he rejects monotheism. :laugh: That doesn't make any sense.

Oh, and just because I enjoy kicking you in the balls...

http://s1.zetaboards.com/The_Congress/topic/4214181/1/

I was talking about Benoist at The Congress over a year ago! You know, that forum where the admin feels sorry for you and allows you to troll? You're such a tool! :smiley_ROFLMAO:

[Akula]

Liberalism stands for individualism in a social sense.

LMAO...Look at that statement...Think about it for a second...

marxist nonsense.

[Chris]

Liberalism stands for individualism in a social sense.


LMAO...Look at that statement...Think about it for a second...

marxist nonsense.

Not real sure how Kranes meant it but I can make sense of it in this way, taking liberalism to mean classical liberalism, not modern. Rights, it's said, are responsibilities, they represent obligations of individuals within society, reciprocal obligations, to do no harm, to respect property, to defend free speech even if you don't like what's said, to bear arms to defend society against oppressive government:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Modern liberalism is the pretense of such principles.

[Akula]

Not real sure how Kranes meant it but I can make sense of it in this way, taking liberalism to mean classical liberalism, not modern. Rights, it's said, are responsibilities, they represent obligations of individuals within society, reciprocal obligations, to do no harm, to respect property, to defend free speech even if you don't like what's said, to bear arms to defend society against oppressive government:
Modern liberalism is the pretense of such principles.

Ok..if I'm wrong; then I'm wrong.

It still looks like marxist gibberish to me.

[Chris]

Ok..if I'm wrong; then I'm wrong.

It still looks like marxist gibberish to me.

Could be. Won't know till Kranes56 jumps back in. :-)

[sparty]

I believe this sums up liberalism nicely "liberalism is a doctrine based on an individualistic anthropology, i.e.,
it rests on a conception of man as a being who is not fundamentally social."

[AZFlyFisher]

:smiley_ROFLMAO:Is it me, folks? He asks me an ignorant question about this author and I decide to be civil even though he doesn't deserve civility. How does he respond? He attacks me. :rollseyes:

No, AZZ, I'm not sure if he connects racial intolerance to monotheism. That's what you asked remember? Secondly, you decry his racism after claiming he connects racism to monotheism yet he rejects monotheism. :laugh: That doesn't make any sense.

Oh, and just because I enjoy kicking you in the balls...

http://s1.zetaboards.com/The_Congress/topic/4214181/1/

I was talking about Benoist at The Congress over a year ago! You know, that forum where the admin feels sorry for you and allows you to troll? You're such a tool! :smiley_ROFLMAO:

You decided to be civil? More like you didn't know what your hero Benoist has written on racial intolerance, lol. It's ok. Most of the right wing websites you read forget to mention that. You're excused.

Benoist blames Christianity for the deplorable present cultural, social, psychological, ecological, even religious barbarism, characterizing Western civilization.

http://www.mty.itesm.mx/dhcs/deptos/ri/ri95-801/jcobian/conciencia/benoist3.html

I agree with your hero on that point.

As far as trashing the other forum, be nice, they let you come back after taking about a year to let your posterior heal. :kick:



You said "I'm not sure if he connects racial intolerance to monotheism."


Monotheism vs. Polytheism
by
Alain de Benoist
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain10.html

"No ancient religion, except that of the Hebrew people has known such a degree of intolerance," says Emile Gillabert in Moise et le phénomène judéo-chrétien (1976). Renan had written in similar terms: "The intolerance of the Semitic peoples is the inevitable consequence of their monotheism."




There, Mister D, now you know.

[Akula]

Benoist blames Christianity for the deplorable present cultural, social, psychological, ecological, even religious barbarism, characterizing Western civilization.

Describe in detail how christianity is responsible for "the deplorable present cultural, social, psychological, ecological, even religious barbarism, characterizing Western civilization." and give an example of each?

[Mister D]

You decided to be civil? More like you didn't know what your hero Benoist has written on racial intolerance, lol. It's ok. Most of the right wing websites you read forget to mention that. You're excused.

Benoist blames Christianity for the deplorable present cultural, social, psychological, ecological, even religious barbarism, characterizing Western civilization.

http://www.mty.itesm.mx/dhcs/deptos/ri/ri95-801/jcobian/conciencia/benoist3.html

I agree with your hero on that point.

As far as trashing the other forum, be nice, they let you come back after taking about a year to let your posterior heal. :kick:



You said "I'm not sure if he connects racial intolerance to monotheism."


Monotheism vs. Polytheism
by
Alain de Benoist
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain10.html

"No ancient religion, except that of the Hebrew people has known such a degree of intolerance," says Emile Gillabert in Moise et le phénomène judéo-chrétien (1976). Renan had written in similar terms: "The intolerance of the Semitic peoples is the inevitable consequence of their monotheism."




There, Mister D, now you know.

It's like arguing with a little kid. :smiley_ROFLMAO:


Mister D,

Do you also agree with Benoist that racial intolerance may have its roots in monotheism and that a return to the ideals of Paganism would cure the ills of Western society?

Where does he argue such a thing? Could you cite this for us? :grin:

[Mister D]

Describe in detail how christianity is responsible for "the deplorable present cultural, social, psychological, ecological, even religious barbarism, characterizing Western civilization." and give an example of each?

What AZZ doesn't quite realize is that Benoist is criticizing AZZ's own politics! :smiley_ROFLMAO:He argues that it's the product of an essentially Christian worldview. AZZ is just too stupid to realize that.

[Mister D]

I believe this sums up liberalism nicely "liberalism is a doctrine based on an individualistic anthropology, i.e.,
it rests on a conception of man as a being who is not fundamentally social."

I agree. I think that sums up liberal anthropology quite well.

[KC]

Benoist also claims that the values Christianity gave us lead to the rise of individualism in western society, which I would suspect is meant as a positive analysis, depending on how you feel about individualism.

There is one thing I would like to question. Certainly Russia has a tradition of Orthodox Christianity (until the Bolshes took over, of course) but Russia has never shown any signs of classical liberal attitudes. In fact part of the reason Russia was so easily dominated by the Bolshevik regime is due to it's tendency toward safety and control rather than disorder, which was certainly present for the struggling peasants before the civil war. Is there anything different about orthodox Christianity that prevented the rise of individualism in Russia? Could the contrast be more appropriately attributed to the geography of Russia, or some other cultural characteristic? How is it that Christianity proved to be fertile soil for individualism in western Europe, but in eastern Europe, nada?

[Mister D]

Benoist also claims that the values Christianity gave us lead to the rise of individualism in western society, which I would suspect is meant as a positive analysis, depending on how you feel about individualism.

There is one thing I would like to question. Certainly Russia has a tradition of Orthodox Christianity (until the Bolshes took over, of course) but Russia has never shown any signs of classical liberal attitudes. In fact part of the reason Russia was so easily dominated by the Bolshevik regime is due to it's tendency toward safety and control rather than disorder, which was certainly present for the struggling peasants before the civil war. Is there anything different about orthodox Christianity that prevented the rise of individualism in Russia? Could the contrast be more appropriately attributed to the geography of Russia, or some other cultural characteristic? How is it that Christianity proved to be fertile soil for individualism in western Europe, but in eastern Europe, nada?

The New Right does at all mean that to be positive.

Benoist and other intellectuals of the New Right don't conceive of Bolshevism as something anathema to liberal individualism but one of its consequences. The ideal of equality unleashed by the liberalism of the European Enlightenment was simply carried out to its logical conclusion. They argue that one cannot contain the call for equality in the way liberals attempted to and still attempt today. Liberals speak of the equality of all men yet try to gloss over the gross economic inequality capitalism gives rise to. For this very reason, according to Benoist, liberalism breeds socialism. For Benoist, liberalism has a schizophrenic quality in that liberals put a great deal of emphasis on human equality but tolerate gross economic inequality. Slogans, such as "equality of opportunity" etc. simply haven't slain the socialist beast. It will always be there and socialism is, according to the New Right, more logically consistent than classical liberalism.

That was off the top of my head. Hope it's clear.

[Akula]

Benoist also claims that the values Christianity gave us lead to the rise of individualism in western society, which I would suspect is meant as a positive analysis, depending on how you feel about individualism.

There is one thing I would like to question. Certainly Russia has a tradition of Orthodox Christianity (until the Bolshes took over, of course) but Russia has never shown any signs of classical liberal attitudes. In fact part of the reason Russia was so easily dominated by the Bolshevik regime is due to it's tendency toward safety and control rather than disorder, which was certainly present for the struggling peasants before the civil war. Is there anything different about orthodox Christianity that prevented the rise of individualism in Russia? Could the contrast be more appropriately attributed to the geography of Russia, or some other cultural characteristic? How is it that Christianity proved to be fertile soil for individualism in western Europe, but in eastern Europe, nada?

The bolsheviks in power were mostly jews..and they hate christians and murdered tens of millions of them. TENS OF MILLIONS...but they NEVER want to talk about THAT..they prefer to play the eternal victim and talk about the evilnaziswhokilled6millionjews

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html
With the notable exception of Lenin (Vladimir Ulyanov), most of the leading Communists who took control of Russia in 1917-20 were Jews.

Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) headed the Red Army and, for a time, was chief of Soviet foreign affairs.
Yakov Sverdlov (Solomon) was both the Bolshevik party's executive secretary and -- as chairman of the Central Executive Committee -- head of the Soviet government.
Grigori Zinoviev (Radomyslsky) headed the Communist International (Comintern), the central agency for spreading revolution in foreign countries.
Other prominent Jews included press commissar Karl Radek (Sobelsohn), foreign affairs commissar Maxim Litvinov (Wallach), Lev Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Moisei Uritsky.6

Lenin himself was of mostly Russian and Kalmuck ancestry, but he was also one-quarter Jewish. His maternal grandfather, Israel (Alexander) Blank, was a Ukrainian Jew who was later baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church.7.

Summing up the situation at that time, Israeli historian Louis Rapoport writes:19

Immediately after the Revolution, many Jews were euphoric over their high representation in the new government. Lenin's first Politburo was dominated by men of Jewish origins

Under Lenin, Jews became involved in all aspects of the Revolution, including its dirtiest work.

Despite the Communists' vows to eradicate anti-Semitism, it spread rapidly after the Revolution -- partly because of the prominence of so many Jews in the Soviet administration, as well as in the traumatic, inhuman Sovietization drives that followed.
Historian Salo Baron has noted that an immensely disproportionate number of Jews joined the new Bolshevik secret police, the Cheka And many of those who fell afoul of the Cheka would be shot by Jewish investigators.

The collective leadership that emerged in Lenin's dying days was headed by the Jew Zinoviev, a loquacious, mean-spirited, curly-haired Adonis whose vanity knew no bounds.

[b]"Anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka," wrote Jewish historian Leonard Schapiro, "stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with, and possibly shot by, a Jewish investigator."20 In Ukraine, "Jews made up nearly 80 percent of the rank-and-file Cheka agents," reports W. Bruce Lincoln, an American professor of Russian history.21 (Beginning as the Cheka, or Vecheka) the Soviet secret police was later known as the GPU, OGPU, NKVD, MVD and KGB.)

Robert Conquest, the distinguished specialist of Soviet history, recently summed up the grim record of Soviet "repression" of it own people:34

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the post-1934 death toll was well over ten million. To this should be added the victims of the 1930-1933 famine, the kulak deportations, and other anti-peasant campaigns, amounting to another ten million plus. The total is thus in the range of what the Russians now refer to as 'The Twenty Million'."

A few other scholars have given significantly higher estimates.

[Mister D]

Great question, kathaariancode (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=423)! :smiley:

[KC]

The New Right does at all mean that to be positive.

Benoist and other intellectuals of the New Right don't conceive of Bolshevism as something anathema to liberal individualism but one of its consequences. The ideal of equality unleashed by the liberalism of the European Enlightenment was simply carried out to its logical conclusion. They argue that one cannot contain the call for equality in the way liberals attempted to and still attempt today. Liberals speak of the equality of all men yet try to gloss over the gross economic inequality capitalism gives rise to. For this very reason, according to Benoist, liberalism breeds socialism. For Benoist, liberalism has a schizophrenic quality in that liberals put a great deal of emphasis on human equality but tolerate gross economic inequality. Slogans, such as "equality of opportunity" etc. simply haven't slain the socialist beast. It will always be there and is, according to the New Right, more logically consistent than classical liberalism.

That was off the top of my head. Hope it's clear.

That's a good response but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I can't perceive Bolshevism as anything but diametrically opposed to individualism. Probably has something to do with a book I'm reading right now that talks about how poorly the experiment of liberalism failed in the interwar period in Europe. It seems to me that while a number of states, including Russia, had high hopes of creating genuine, liberal institutions, the Bolshes didn't even pretend to take real action. They denied the vote to monks, former bourgeois and several other groups. They dramatically increased the presence of government surveillance, not just for the purposes of policing, but for the purpose of actively changing the way man behaves, in order to achieve full conformity. Socialism may have been a key element of Bolshevism, but there are many more aspects to Bolshevism that was rooted in collectivism before and after the reds took over.

[KC]

The bolsheviks in power were mostly jews..and they hate christians and murdered tens of millions of them. TENS OF MILLIONS...but they NEVER want to talk about THAT..they prefer to play the eternal victim and talk about the evilnaziswhokilled6millionjews

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html
With the notable exception of Lenin (Vladimir Ulyanov), most of the leading Communists who took control of Russia in 1917-20 were Jews.

Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) headed the Red Army and, for a time, was chief of Soviet foreign affairs.
Yakov Sverdlov (Solomon) was both the Bolshevik party's executive secretary and -- as chairman of the Central Executive Committee -- head of the Soviet government.
Grigori Zinoviev (Radomyslsky) headed the Communist International (Comintern), the central agency for spreading revolution in foreign countries.
Other prominent Jews included press commissar Karl Radek (Sobelsohn), foreign affairs commissar Maxim Litvinov (Wallach), Lev Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Moisei Uritsky.6

Lenin himself was of mostly Russian and Kalmuck ancestry, but he was also one-quarter Jewish. His maternal grandfather, Israel (Alexander) Blank, was a Ukrainian Jew who was later baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church.7.

Summing up the situation at that time, Israeli historian Louis Rapoport writes:19

Immediately after the Revolution, many Jews were euphoric over their high representation in the new government. Lenin's first Politburo was dominated by men of Jewish origins

Under Lenin, Jews became involved in all aspects of the Revolution, including its dirtiest work.

Despite the Communists' vows to eradicate anti-Semitism, it spread rapidly after the Revolution -- partly because of the prominence of so many Jews in the Soviet administration, as well as in the traumatic, inhuman Sovietization drives that followed.
Historian Salo Baron has noted that an immensely disproportionate number of Jews joined the new Bolshevik secret police, the Cheka And many of those who fell afoul of the Cheka would be shot by Jewish investigators.

The collective leadership that emerged in Lenin's dying days was headed by the Jew Zinoviev, a loquacious, mean-spirited, curly-haired Adonis whose vanity knew no bounds.

[B]"Anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka," wrote Jewish historian Leonard Schapiro, "stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with, and possibly shot by, a Jewish investigator."20 In Ukraine, "Jews made up nearly 80 percent of the rank-and-file Cheka agents," reports W. Bruce Lincoln, an American professor of Russian history.21 (Beginning as the Cheka, or Vecheka) the Soviet secret police was later known as the GPU, OGPU, NKVD, MVD and KGB.)

Robert Conquest, the distinguished specialist of Soviet history, recently summed up the grim record of Soviet "repression" of it own people:34

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the post-1934 death toll was well over ten million. To this should be added the victims of the 1930-1933 famine, the kulak deportations, and other anti-peasant campaigns, amounting to another ten million plus. The total is thus in the range of what the Russians now refer to as 'The Twenty Million'."

A few other scholars have given significantly higher estimates.

The whites frequently tried to project this image of the Bolsheviks as Jews for propaganda. I'm not sure how it's relevant to my question, since it took far more than a handful of Jews to wipe out the white army. Ultimately the Bolshes had to appeal to cultural attitudes in Russia in order to enact there specific agenda, which was way different than the more modest proposals of the Menshes or the Social Revolutionaries.

[Akula]

The whites frequently tried to project this image of the Bolsheviks as Jews for propaganda. I'm not sure how it's relevant to my question, since it took far more than a handful of Jews to wipe out the white army. Ultimately the Bolshes had to appeal to cultural attitudes in Russia in order to enact there specificagenda, which was way different than the more modest proposals of the Menshes or the Social Revolutionaries.

I figured someone would complain or deny... that's why I bolded the quotes from jewish historians.

So you're saying none of this happened, no one died and everyone is lying...including the jews?

[KC]

So you're saying none of this happened, no one died and everyone is lying...including the jews?

Not at all. I'm simply saying that while Trotsky and other higher ups in the Bolshevik movement were in fact Jewish that poses little relevance to my question. The Bolsheviks had to appeal to the peasants in order to take power so handily, and most of the peasants were not Jewish.

Also it's important to keep in mind that Surveillance and other symbols of a collectivist state weren't unique to the Bolsheviks, since it also occurred in a widespread way during the reign of Nicholas II. Next you're going to tell me that he was also Jewish.

[Mister D]

That's a good response but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I can't perceive Bolshevism as anything but diametrically opposed to individualism. Probably has something to do with a book I'm reading right now that talks about how poorly the experiment of liberalism failed in the interwar period in Europe. It seems to me that while a number of states, including Russia, had high hopes of creating genuine, liberal institutions, the Bolshes didn't even pretend to take real action. They denied the vote to monks, former bourgeois and several other groups. They dramatically increased the presence of government surveillance, not just for the purposes of policing, but for the purpose of actively changing the way man behaves, in order to achieve full conformity. Socialism may have been a key element of Bolshevism, but there are many more aspects to Bolshevism that was rooted in collectivism before and after the reds took over.

I'm just introducing new ideas and I appreciate the discussion.

I used to think of it the same way but the New Right's arguments make sense. For Benoist, liberalism and socialism share "a common history and common premises". Equalitarianism is one of them. Isn't that what the Bolshevists insisted on? Bolshevism was no throwback to the pre-modern, collectivist past but an utterly modern system that was designed to reconcile the tension between the Enlightenment ideals of individualism and equality. Liberals have never been able to reconcile the two which is why there will always be socialism as long as there is liberalism.

The New Right has an interesting take on the nature of totalitarianism. I'll review a bit tonight.

[Mister D]

Not at all. I'm simply saying that while Trotsky and other higher ups in the Bolshevik movement were in fact Jewish that poses little relevance to my question. The Bolsheviks had to appeal to the peasants in order to take power so handily, and most of the peasants were not Jewish.

Also it's important to keep in mind that Surveillance and other symbols of a collectivist state weren't unique to the Bolsheviks, since it also occurred in a widespread way during the reign of Nicholas II. Next you're going to tell me that he was also Jewish.

On the other hand, Lenin managed to kill more "enemies" in a year than the Tsarist police did in decades. Perhaps even a century. I'm going on memory.

[Akula]

Not at all. I'm simply saying that while Trotsky and other higher ups in the Bolshevik movement were in fact Jewish that poses little relevance to my question. The Bolsheviks had to appeal to the peasants in order to take power so handily, and most of the peasants were not Jewish.

obama had to appeal to most americans to take power and most americans aren't negroes. See how that works?


Also it's important to keep in mind that Surveillance and other symbols of a collectivist state weren't unique to the Bolsheviks, since it also occurred in a widespread way during the reign of Nicholas II.
What are "surveillance and other symbols of a collectivist state?"

I don't speak marxist.


Next you're going to tell me that he was also Jewish.
Why do you say that?

[Deadwood]

Mister D,

Do you also agree with Benoist that racial intolerance may have its roots in monotheism and that a return to the ideals of Paganism would cure the ills of Western society?

I highly suggest some study of history is in order.

Racial intolerance and slavery pre-date monotheism by centuries. Give Homer a good read. The Romans, with god borrowed from the Greeks considered anyone not "Roman" to be sub-human and even kept human pets in the form of Asian midgets whom they kept for comedic purposes.

Or maybe go back to the Egyptians....

[KC]

On the other hand, Lenin managed to kill more "enemies" in a year than the Tsarist police did in decades. Perhaps even a century. I'm going on memory.

Sure did. There are two main differences between policing and surveillance in Post civil war Russia and its predecessor, along with other interwar powers. First, Bolshevik policing was way different in scope. They killed and watched over many more citizens than the tsarist regime. However during the interwar period Tsarist Russia, Germany and even England set up surveillance methods, usually consisting of looking over letters and things of that sort in the interest of national security (sound familiar?). Second, they differed in their ends. The Tsar, the English and the Germans were more worried about watching over potential threats to the state. The Bolshes, on the other hand, wanted to change men and men's attitudes, in all aspects of life.

[Mister D]

Sure did. There are two main differences between policing and surveillance in Post civil war Russia and its predecessor, along with other interwar powers. First, Bolshevik policing was way different in scope. They killed and watched over many more citizens than the tsarist regime. However during the interwar period Tsarist Russia, Germany and even England set up surveillance methods, usually consisting of looking over letters and things of that sort in the interest of national security (sound familiar?). Second, they differed in their ends. The Tsar, the English and the Germans were more worried about watching over potential threats to the state. The Bolshes, on the other hand, wanted to change men and men's attitudes, in all aspects of life.

Interesting. I need to oick a good book on the Russian Revolution and civil war. What are you reading?

Benoist would argue that the Bolshevik vision of remaking/ redeeming Man and society was the result of Europe's residual Christianity. Progressivism in all its forms is merely Christianity emptied of transcendent references.

[Chris]

I believe this sums up liberalism nicely "liberalism is a doctrine based on an individualistic anthropology, i.e.,
it rests on a conception of man as a being who is not fundamentally social."

Modern liberalism, perhaps, but not classical liberalism. Earlier I referred to Hayek who distinguishes the two types of liberalism in The Constitution of Liberty. Below is another statement of this distinction by Hayek in Individualism and the Economic Order (http://mises.org/books/individualismandeconomicorder.pdf), the chapter titled "Individualism: True and False":
The true individualism which I shall try to defend began its modern development with John Locke, and particularly with Bernard Mandeville and David Hume, and achieved full stature for the first time in the work of Josiah Tucker, Adam Ferguson, and Adam Smith and in that of their great contemporary, Edmund Burke-the man whom Smith described as the only person he ever knew who thought on economic subjects exactly as he did without any previous communication having passed between them.2 In the nineteenth century I find it represented most perfectly in the work of two of its greatest historians and political philosophers: Alexis de Tocqueville and Lord Acton. These two men seem to me to have more successfully developed what was best in the political philosophy of the Scottish philosophers, Burke, and the English Whigs than any other writers I know; while the classical economists of the nineteenth century, or at least the Benthamites or philosophical radicals among them, came increasingly under the influence of another kind of individualism of different origin.

This second and altogether different strand of thought, also known as individualism, is represented mainly by French and other Continental writers-a fact due, I believe, to the dominant role which Cartesian rationalism plays in its composition. The outstanding representatives of this tradition are the Encyclopedists, Rousseau, and the physiocrats; and, for reasons we shall presently consider, this rationalistic individualism always tends to develop into the opposite of individualism, namely, socialism or collectivism. It is because only the first kind of individualism is consistent that I claim for it the name of true individualism, while the second kind must probably be regarded as a source of modern socialism as important as the properly collectivist theories.
This is a distinction collectivist Benoist, or at least the translator of his French, fails to make as the translator's note in the OP lumps them together.

[Carygrant]

There is no defense of liberalism. no more. Maybe for a brief time but that is long gone now.


You cannot get more confused than that .

[KC]

obama had to appeal to most americans to take power and most americans aren't negroes. See how that works?
Ah but Obama had to appeal to a broader group of voters in order to win power. That must mean that enough Americans thought they shared his values enough to vote for him. When the Bolshes took power, they had to show that they shared some values with the peasantry. Many of thses values were collectivist policies such as the redistribution of land. See how that works? The cultural values we are discussing (collectivism) must have been present even among non Jews in order for the Bolsheviks to take control.


What are "surveillance and other symbols of a collectivist state?"

I'm talking things like intense nationalism, which lead to the Russian involvement in WWI and the surveillance, or spying, on people. Both were done in order to acheive a more collectivist state where the security of the group is more important than individual rights.



Why do you say that?
Because Nicholas II, an orthodox Russian, also practiced certain aspects of a collectivist agenda. He did a pretty shitty job, but that is irrelevant.

[Chris]

Benoist also claims that the values Christianity gave us lead to the rise of individualism in western society, which I would suspect is meant as a positive analysis, depending on how you feel about individualism.

There is one thing I would like to question. Certainly Russia has a tradition of Orthodox Christianity (until the Bolshes took over, of course) but Russia has never shown any signs of classical liberal attitudes. In fact part of the reason Russia was so easily dominated by the Bolshevik regime is due to it's tendency toward safety and control rather than disorder, which was certainly present for the struggling peasants before the civil war. Is there anything different about orthodox Christianity that prevented the rise of individualism in Russia? Could the contrast be more appropriately attributed to the geography of Russia, or some other cultural characteristic? How is it that Christianity proved to be fertile soil for individualism in western Europe, but in eastern Europe, nada?


Benoist also claims that the values Christianity gave us lead to the rise of individualism in western society, which I would suspect is meant as a positive analysis, depending on how you feel about individualism.

Benoist is clearly anti-individualist, and from what I gather vaguely anti-Christian in his desire to return to paganism and a pre-Christian political order.


As for the Russian question, don't know other than just as Russians swarmed around communism so too did Western Europeans around Nazism and fascism, all three branched of socialism, which derive from French liberalism/collectivism.


tendency toward safety and control rather than disorder

Is the classical liberal tradition disordered? Or does it rely on a social order rather than a state order, social liberty vs statist totalitarianism?

[KC]

Interesting. I need to oick a good book on the Russian Revolution and civil war. What are you reading?


My babbling about surveillance vcomes primarily from a Journal by Peter Holquist titled "Information is the Alpha and Omega of our Work", which you can read here:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2953592?seq=1

The other thing I'm reading now is called "Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century" by Mark Mazower. The latter talks more about Europe in general, but Mazower spends a decent amount of time talking about why liberalism failed in Russia as well as Italy and Germany.

[Chris]

The New Right does at all mean that to be positive.

Benoist and other intellectuals of the New Right don't conceive of Bolshevism as something anathema to liberal individualism but one of its consequences. The ideal of equality unleashed by the liberalism of the European Enlightenment was simply carried out to its logical conclusion. They argue that one cannot contain the call for equality in the way liberals attempted to and still attempt today. Liberals speak of the equality of all men yet try to gloss over the gross economic inequality capitalism gives rise to. For this very reason, according to Benoist, liberalism breeds socialism. For Benoist, liberalism has a schizophrenic quality in that liberals put a great deal of emphasis on human equality but tolerate gross economic inequality. Slogans, such as "equality of opportunity" etc. simply haven't slain the socialist beast. It will always be there and socialism is, according to the New Right, more logically consistent than classical liberalism.

That was off the top of my head. Hope it's clear.


socialism is, according to the New Right, more logically consistent than classical liberalism.

I'd love to hear a rational defense of that. The two, socialism and classical liberalism, are opposites.

[Chris]

That's a good response but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I can't perceive Bolshevism as anything but diametrically opposed to individualism. Probably has something to do with a book I'm reading right now that talks about how poorly the experiment of liberalism failed in the interwar period in Europe. It seems to me that while a number of states, including Russia, had high hopes of creating genuine, liberal institutions, the Bolshes didn't even pretend to take real action. They denied the vote to monks, former bourgeois and several other groups. They dramatically increased the presence of government surveillance, not just for the purposes of policing, but for the purpose of actively changing the way man behaves, in order to achieve full conformity. Socialism may have been a key element of Bolshevism, but there are many more aspects to Bolshevism that was rooted in collectivism before and after the reds took over.

Exactly!

What's this book? I'd like to check it out.

[KC]

Is the classical liberal tradition disordered? Or does it rely on a social order rather than a state order, social liberty vs statist totalitarianism?
My assertion about Russian political culture wasn't clear enough. What I really meant to say here is that Russian political culture is characterized by a strong state that can offer them order. This is why Putin had remained so popular (up until the recent election).

I don't think liberalism leads to disorder, but when the Russian people saw a lot of disorder under the Tsar they quickly sought refuge in the Bolsheviks, who were offering them security in both the economic and social sense of the word.


Exactly!

What's this book? I'd like to check it out.

"Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century" by Mark Mazower. It's not just about liberalism as a failed experiment, but that's been what I've read so far and seems to be a major theme of the book.

[Chris]

I'm just introducing new ideas and I appreciate the discussion.

I used to think of it the same way but the New Right's arguments make sense. For Benoist, liberalism and socialism share "a common history and common premises". Equalitarianism is one of them. Isn't that what the Bolshevists insisted on? Bolshevism was no throwback to the pre-modern, collectivist past but an utterly modern system that was designed to reconcile the tension between the Enlightenment ideals of individualism and equality. Liberals have never been able to reconcile the two which is why there will always be socialism as long as there is liberalism.

The New Right has an interesting take on the nature of totalitarianism. I'll review a bit tonight.


For Benoist, liberalism and socialism share "a common history and common premises". Equalitarianism is one of them.

Equalitarianism is not part of classical liberalism. It is a major part of French or continental liberalism, but not the English/Scottish tradition.


an utterly modern system that was designed to reconcile the tension between the Enlightenment ideals of individualism and equality

This tension between the two strands of liberalism is exactly what Benoist fails to distinguish.


Liberals have never been able to reconcile the two which is why there will always be socialism as long as there is liberalism.

Indeed, they are at odds with each other.

[Mister D]

I'd love to hear a rational defense of that. The two, socialism and classical liberalism, are opposites.

Merely because you claim they are? Hardly. Anyway, you could infer it directly from the post you copied. Liberals champion equality but their system gives rise to gross inequality. Socialists are simply taking human equality to its logical conclusion. The modern liberal order will never get rid of socialism and socialist sentiment, Chris, because instead of abandoning the ideal of equality they've tried unsuccessfully to contain it with concepts like "equality of opportunity". Liberalism breeds socialism. Where there is liberalism there will be socialism.

[Mister D]

Equalitarianism is not part of classical liberalism. It is a major part of French or continental liberalism, but not the English/Scottish tradition.

Sure it is. Equality, individualism, progress, and universalism are all part and parcel of liberalism.



This tension between the two strands of liberalism is exactly what Benoist fails to distinguish.

We've already discussed this. Benoist focuses on the common roots of liberal (i.e. modern) philosophies. These ideals are in tension in all liberal thought as well as in your own society.



Indeed, they are at odds with each other.

Indeed, that's why Benoist refers to liberal schizophrenia.

[Chris]

My assertion about Russian political culture wasn't clear enough. What I really meant to say here is that Russian political culture is characterized by a strong state that can offer them order. This is why Putin had remained so popular (up until the recent election).

I don't think liberalism leads to disorder, but when the Russian people saw a lot of disorder under the Tsar they quickly sought refuge in the Bolsheviks, who were offering them security in both the economic and social sense of the word.



"Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century" by Mark Mazower. It's not just about liberalism as a failed experiment, but that's been what I've read so far and seems to be a major theme of the book.



I can't help but think that order in the form of a state is what most people seek for safety and control when classical liberalism, free market capitalism, and the like offers liberty but in a spontaneous, uncertain world.

[Mister D]

My assertion about Russian political culture wasn't clear enough. What I really meant to say here is that Russian political culture is characterized by a strong state that can offer them order. This is why Putin had remained so popular (up until the recent election).

I don't think liberalism leads to disorder, but when the Russian people saw a lot of disorder under the Tsar they quickly sought refuge in the Bolsheviks, who were offering them security in both the economic and social sense of the word.



"Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century" by Mark Mazower. It's not just about liberalism as a failed experiment, but that's been what I've read so far and seems to be a major theme of the book.

I do think liberalism is failing but it is still the dominant ideology. In fact, it is the ideology of modernity itself.

[Chris]

Sure it is. Equality, individualism, progress, and universalism are all part and parcel of liberalism.




We've already discussed this. Benoist focuses on the common roots of liberal (i.e. modern) philosophies. These ideals are in tension in all liberal thought as well as in your own society.




Indeed, that's why Benoist refers to liberal schizophrenia.


Sure it is. Equality, individualism, progress, and universalism are all part and parcel of liberalism.

You lump disparate notions together. Earlier, when you say "an utterly modern system that was designed to reconcile the tension between the Enlightenment ideals of individualism and equality" you seem to recognize the disparity, but now you turn around and repeat the lumping of them.


Benoist focuses on the common roots of liberal (i.e. modern) philosophies.

Which are? Explain how common roots include disparate ideas like socialism and individualism. Explain how they are common.


Indeed, that's why Benoist refers to liberal schizophrenia.

I suggest it is Benoists misconceived notion of liberalism, which fails to distinguish two strands of liberalism, that is schizophrenic.

[Chris]

I'd love to hear a rational defense of that. The two, socialism and classical liberalism, are opposites.


Merely because you claim they are? Hardly. Anyway, you could infer it directly from the post you copied. Liberals champion equality but their system gives rise to gross inequality. Socialists are simply taking human equality to its logical conclusion. The modern liberal order will never get rid of socialism and socialist sentiment, Chris, because instead of abandoning the ideal of equality they've tried unsuccessfully to contain it with concepts like "equality of opportunity". Liberalism breeds socialism. Where there is liberalism there will be socialism.

Rather, D, it was you who merely made a claim and I asked you to explain, to defend your claim. Now as for that defense...


Liberals champion equality but their system gives rise to gross inequality.

Modern liberalism, derived from the French tradition, true enough, but classical liberalism champions the natural differences among individuals.

[KC]

I do think liberalism is failing but it is still the dominant ideology. In fact, it is the ideology of modernity itself.
I think it will make a comeback. If history is any guide.

[Chris]

I do think liberalism is failing but it is still the dominant ideology. In fact, it is the ideology of modernity itself.

Classical liberalism, individualism, has its roots in Greek political philosophy. Pericles is considered a founder. Modern liberal collectivism in Plato. Plato pitted collectivism against individualism, claiming altruism for the former, egoism/selfishness for the latter--when the opposite is true.

[KC]

Classical liberalism, individualism, has its roots in Greek political philosophy. Pericles is considered a founder. Modern liberal collectivism in Plato. Plato pitted collectivism against individualism, claiming altruism for the former, egoism/selfishness for the latter--when the opposite is true.
Reading the Republic that's the impression one gets but it really seems that Plato isnt actually suggesting his theory in the Republic would work. The famous thought experiment probably had more to do with what justice is than how we should actually run a state.

[Mister D]

You lump disparate notions together. Earlier, when you say "an utterly modern system that was designed to reconcile the tension between the Enlightenment ideals of individualism and equality" you seem to recognize the disparity, but now you turn around and repeat the lumping of them.

Chris, these values are all inherent to liberalism. The fact that they are in tension is the point. It's not that different liberalisms are in tension but that the values underlying liberal thought in general are in tension.


Which are? Explain how common roots include disparate ideas like socialism and individualism. Explain how they are common.

Both are based on the liberal values of equality, individualism, progress, and universalism. BTW, Marx did not reject individualism.


The reality of Marxist individualism, beyond its collectivist façade, was established by many authors,
beginning with Louis Dumont. “Marx’s entire philosophy,” Pierre Rosanvallon writes,
“can . . . be understood as an effort to enhance modern individualism. . . . The concept of
class struggle itself has no meaning outside the framework of an individualistic
representation of society. In a traditional society, by contrast, it has no significance”



Marx certain challenged the fiction of homoeconomicus that developed beginning in the eighteenth century, but only because the bourgeoisie used it to alienate the realindividual and bind him to an existence narrowed to the sphere of self- interest alone.
However, for Marx, self-interest is merely an expression of a separation between the
individual and his life. (It is the basis of the best part of his work, namely his criticism of
“reified” social relations.) But he by no means intends to substitute the common good for
private interests. There is not even a place for class interests.



I suggest it is Benoists misconceived notion of liberalism, which fails to distinguish two strands of liberalism, that is schizophrenic.

For Benoist the distinctions liberals make between themselves are not the topic.

[Mister D]

Rather, D, it was you who merely made a claim and I asked you to explain, to defend your claim. Now as for that defense...



Modern liberalism, derived from the French tradition, true enough, but classical liberalism champions the natural differences among individuals.

Chris, I'm not making a claim. This isn't a competition. Please stop taking this personally or as a threat to your identity. I am introducing Benoist and his ideas. I agree with much of what he says but I also reject much of what he stands for.

The ideal of human equality is part and parcel of liberalism generally be it French, English, or Bumblefuckian.

[Chris]

Reading the Republic that's the impression one gets but it really seems that Plato isnt actually suggesting his theory in the Republic would work. The famous thought experiment probably had more to do with what justice is than how we should actually run a state.

That seems to be the way modern liberals read Plato, though I prefer Popper's criticism in The Open Society of Plato as a totalitarian wanting to return to Greece's ancient tribal order.

[Mister D]

I think it will make a comeback. If history is any guide.

Liberals heralded the end of history. It's come back (i.e. reality) to bite them in the ass. The modern system is failing and I'm not unhappy about it.

[Chris]

Chris, these values are all inherent to liberalism. The fact that they are in tension is the point. It's not that different liberalisms are in tension but that the values underlying liberal thought in general are in tension.



Both are based on the liberal values of equality, individualism, progress, and universalism. BTW, Marx did not reject individualism.








For Benoist the distinctions liberals make between themselves are not the topic.


these values are all inherent to liberalism

As long as you like Benoist lump the disparate strands of classical and modern liberalism as one.


The fact that they are in tension is the point.

Exactly, they are two different worldviews.


Both are based on the liberal values of equality, individualism, progress, and universalism. BTW, Marx did not reject individualism.

Marx's view of individualism is the opposite of that of classical liberalism. His individualism is based on equality, classical liberalism is based on natural difference among individuals.


For Benoist the distinctions liberals make between themselves are not the topic.

Exactly, he fails to see the distinction.

[KC]

That seems to be the way modern liberals read Plato, though I prefer Popper's criticism in The Open Society of Plato as a totalitarian wanting to return to Greece's ancient tribal order.
Maybe he was. It's kinda tough for moderns to go back and try to figure out what exactly Plato's real intentions were, but he does talk a lot about the tripartite soul and justice, however.

[Mister D]

Classical liberalism, individualism, has its roots in Greek political philosophy. Pericles is considered a founder. Modern liberal collectivism in Plato. Plato pitted collectivism against individualism, claiming altruism for the former, egoism/selfishness for the latter--when the opposite is true.

However deep you feel the roots of individualism go that doesn;t change the fact that liberalism is the ideology of modernity.

[Chris]

Chris, I'm not making a claim. This isn't a competition. Please stop taking this personally or as a threat to your identity. I am introducing Benoist and his ideas. I agree with much of what he says but I also reject much of what he stands for.

The ideal of human equality is part and parcel of liberalism generally be it French, English, or Bumblefuckian.

Here we go again. If you didn't make a claim, fine, then it can be ignored.

Why do you see discussion of ideas as a personally threatening competition, I don't. Please, back to ideas.


I am introducing Benoist and his ideas. I agree with much of what he says but I also reject much of what he stands for.

And I am presenting a criticism of his ideas based on the ideas of other from Plato to Hayek and others.


The ideal of human equality is part and parcel of liberalism generally be it French, English, or Bumblefuckian.

Let's try and be a little bit serious.

[Chris]

Maybe he was. It's kinda tough for moderns to go back and try to figure out what exactly Plato's real intentions were, but he does talk a lot about the tripartite soul and justice, however.

True, but I think his conclusion was similar to Hegel's, that what is right and just is the state.

[Chris]

Liberals heralded the end of history. It's come back (i.e. reality) to bite them in the ass. The modern system is failing and I'm not unhappy about it.

You mean the neocon Fukuyama?

[Mister D]

As long as you like Benoist lump the disparate strands of classical and modern liberalism as one.

He's done no such thing. He focuses on what they have in common. Much like we have focused in the past on what fascism, communism, and socialism have in common.



Exactly, they are two different worldviews.

Held at the same time by liberals. I don't think it makes sense to call values "wordlviews" but that's fine.



Marx's view of individualism is the opposite of that of classical liberalism. His individualism is based on equality, classical liberalism is based on natural difference among individuals.


Liberals of all stripes champion the aforementioned. These are values, Chris. They are not based on anything but a shared anthropology.



Exactly, he fails to see the distinction.

They are immaterial. It's all liberalism.

[Mister D]

You mean the neocon Fukuyama?

Fukuyama is a liberal but, no, that sentiment was and is widespread.

[Chris]

However deep you feel the roots of individualism go that doesn;t change the fact that liberalism is the ideology of modernity.

I do not disagree at all that modern liberalsim is an ideology of modernity. Classical liberalism is not, classical liberalism is not even properly an ideology in the common sense of "An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology) Classical liberalism is not about ends, it is about means.

[Mister D]

Here we go again. If you didn't make a claim, fine, then it can be ignored.

It's Benoist's claim, silly. :rollseyes: You know, the author whose ideas we're discussing?


Why do you see discussion of ideas as a personally threatening competition, I don't. Please, back to ideas.


Just try not to take this stuff personally.



And I am presenting a criticism of his ideas based on the ideas of other from Plato to Hayek and others.


No, you're addressing me. I am explaining to you what Benoist's views are. It's not a competition, Chris. Relax.



Let's try and be a little bit serious.

The ideal of human equality is part and parcel of liberalism generally be it French, English, or Bumblefuckian. That's a fact. Granted, a don't take the concept of equality seriously value but many of you people do.

[Mister D]

He's done no such thing. He focuses on what they have in common. Much like we have focused in the past on what fascism, communism, and socialism have in common.




Held at the same time by liberals. I don't think it makes sense to call values "wordlviews" but that's fine.




Liberals of all stripes champion the aforementioned. These are values, Chris. They are not based on anything but a shared anthropology.




They are immaterial. It's all liberalism.

Bump.

Night gentlemen.

[Chris]

He's done no such thing. He focuses on what they have in common. Much like we have focused in the past on what fascism, communism, and socialism have in common.




Held at the same time by liberals. I don't think it makes sense to call values "wordlviews" but that's fine.




Liberals of all stripes champion the aforementioned. These are values, Chris. They are not based on anything but a shared anthropology.




They are immaterial. It's all liberalism.


He focuses on what they have in common. ...Held at the same time by liberals.

Only if lumped together by ignoring differences which I've more than elucidated by now and you ignore.


Liberals of all stripes champion the aforementioned.

Not true as I have described.


It's all liberalism.

Equivocation.

Discussion ought to be rational. Perhaps being rational is what Benoist rejects, lol.

[Mister D]

Chris, there are differences between fascismm, socialism, and communism yet you brush them aside. :wink:

[Chris]

It's Benoist's claim, silly. :rollseyes: You know, the author whose ideas we're discussing?



Just try not to take this stuff personally.




No, you're addressing me. I am explaining to you what Benoist's views are. It's not a competition, Chris. Relax.




The ideal of human equality is part and parcel of liberalism generally be it French, English, or Bumblefuckian. That's a fact. Granted, a don't take the concept of equality seriously value but many of you people do.


It's Benoist's claim, silly. You know, the author whose ideas we're discussing?

Then your saying you made no claim was just a nice diversion and we're back to my request you explain it, be it your or B's claim.


Just try not to take this stuff personally.

It's you being personal, another nice diversion from discussing ideas.


The ideal of human equality is part and parcel of liberalism generally be it French, English, or Bumblefuckian. That's a fact. Granted, a don't take the concept of equality seriously value but many of you people do.

And there you go getting personal again.

Equality is not a part of classical liberalism with is based on, and values, individual differences. That is precisely where the French and English/Scottish strains of liberalism are distinct. Seems Benoist is basing his entire anti-capitalist, anti-individualist argument on the false premise of equivocating two distinct versions of liberalism.

[Chris]

Chris, there are differences between fascismm, socialism, and communism yet you brush them aside. :wink:

Uh, where'd I brush those differences aside?

[Chris]

OK, so the ideas are out there, one that lumps liberalism, one that distinguishes as history has done. Seems to me what Benoist (according to D) is basing his entire criticism on is the notion that all the disagreement betweem conservatives (Republicans, libertarians etc) of a classical liberal bent and liberals (Democrats, socialists, etc) of modern liberal one, all the disagreements we see day in day out in thread after thread, posts after post, is all for nought and ought to be set aside because we're all the same liberals, we should perhaps all come together and sing kumbaya before we fade away in failure. Wonder how many people here buy that, and how many find the lumping equivocation ludicrous.

[AZFlyFisher]

Where does he argue such a thing? Could you cite this for us? :grin:

I did. Did you read it?

It's like arguing with an adult who has no ability to read or comprehend. You obviously haven't read what Benoist has written on the subject or it would be very clear what his opinion about racial intolerance and monotheism are.

Then again.... You are Mister D, so maybe not. :dang:

[Mister D]

I did. Did you read it?

It's like arguing with an adult who has no ability to read or comprehend. You obviously haven't read what Benoist has written on the subject or it would be very clear what his opinion about racial intolerance and monotheism are.

Then again.... You are Mister D, so maybe not. :dang:

Are you still here? :laugh: Let us know when you can cite this supposed argument. Thanks.

[Mister D]

Then your saying you made no claim was just a nice diversion and we're back to my request you explain it, be it your or B's claim.

It's been explained. You're either thick or you're taking this waaaay too personally.



It's you being personal, another nice diversion from discussing ideas.

Chris, you're notorious for not being able to discuss ideas you hold close to you.



And there you go getting personal again.

Equality is not a part of classical liberalism with is based on, and values, individual differences. That is precisely where the French and English/Scottish strains of liberalism are distinct. Seems Benoist is basing his entire anti-capitalist, anti-individualist argument on the false premise of equivocating two distinct versions of liberalism.

Yes, equality is part and parcel of liberalism generally whether or not your Scottish friends value "individual differences" (whatever you might mean by that). Again, Benoist focuses on their underlying premises. All liberals share the anthropology I described earlier. All liberals...

[Mister D]

Only if lumped together by ignoring differences which I've more than elucidated by now and you ignore.

Sigh...focus, Chris. That liberals have disagreements about this or that is immaterial. Benoist acknowledges that. They ALL champion the aforementioned values of human equality (this is a concept you seem completely lost on), universalism, individualism etc. Please, try to jettison these distinctions about equality of opportunity, equality of outcome etc. They're tripping you up.




Not true as I have described.

Yes, it is true. There is not a single brach of liberalism that does not champion human equality. Not one.


Equivocation.

Discussion ought to be rational. Perhaps being rational is what Benoist rejects, lol.

You even refrred to them as varieties of liberalism! You said: "That is precisely where the French and English/Scottish strains of liberalism are distinct." Again, the different "strains of liberalism" are acknowledged but it's not material to the argument Benoist makes. Good grief...

YOU believe in human equality, Chris.

[Mister D]

Uh, where'd I brush those differences aside?

Whenever you have discussed the relationship between fascism and socialism. You have consistently described fascism as a variety of socialism and throw both under the heading "statism". Far be it for anyone to dare throw the various "strains of liberalism" under the heading liberalism. :laugh:

[Mister D]

OK, so the ideas are out there, one that lumps liberalism, one that distinguishes as history has done. Seems to me what Benoist (according to D) is basing his entire criticism on is the notion that all the disagreement betweem conservatives (Republicans, libertarians etc) of a classical liberal bent and liberals (Democrats, socialists, etc) of modern liberal one, all the disagreements we see day in day out in thread after thread, posts after post, is all for nought and ought to be set aside because we're all the same liberals, we should perhaps all come together and sing kumbaya before we fade away in failure. Wonder how many people here buy that, and how many find the lumping equivocation ludicrous.

Sigh...Chris you're being awfully thick. Again, Benoist focuses on what the different "strains of liberalism" (your words) have in common. In fact, they share a set of premises about humanity and they share a common tradition of universalism, individualism etc.

What is it with this guy?

[Chris]

It's been explained. You're either thick or you're taking this waaaay too personally.


.

Chris, you're notorious for not being able to discuss ideas you hold close to you.




Yes, equality is part and parcel of liberalism generally whether or not your Scottish friends value "individual differences" (whatever you might mean by that). Again, Benoist focuses on their underlying premises. All liberals share the anthropology I described earlier. All liberals...

So your argument today is reduced to ad hom and repetition.

The individual differences are natural differences: We each have different skills, interests, abilities, desires, etc. It is because of these differences that liberty is so important, you know, as in the pursuit of happiness or religious beliefs. No centrally planned government of cookie cutter one-size-fits-all solutions can accommodate those individual differences.

[Mister D]

So your argument today is reduced to ad hom and repetition.

The individual differences are natural differences: We each have different skills, interests, abilities, desires, etc. It is because of these differences that liberty is so important, you know, as in the pursuit of happiness or religious beliefs. No centrally planned government of cookie cutter one-size-fits-all solutions can accommodate those individual differences.

Yes, we do have "different skills" etc. So what? :laugh: Are you done now? You do realize this has ZERO to do with Benoist's argument?

[Chris]

Sigh...focus, Chris. That liberals have disagreements about this or that is immaterial. Benoist acknowledges that. They ALL champion the aforementioned values of human equality (this is a concept you seem completely lost on), universalism, individualism etc. Please, try to jettison these distinctions about equality of opportunity, equality of outcome etc. They're tripping you up.




Yes, it is true. There is not a single brach of liberalism that does not champion human equality. Not one.



You even refrred to them as varieties of liberalism! You said: "That is precisely where the French and English/Scottish strains of liberalism are distinct." Again, the different "strains of liberalism" are acknowledged but it's not material to the argument Benoist makes. Good grief...

YOU believe in human equality, Chris.

And here repetition of claims--just because you say so--and then a straw man attempt at telling me what I believe in when I have argued the opposite.

[Chris]

Sigh...Chris you're being awfully thick. Again, Benoist focuses on what the different "strains of liberalism" (your words) have in common. In fact, they share a set of premises about humanity and they share a common tradition of universalism, individualism etc.

What is it with this guy?

And more repetitious ad hom.

[Chris]

Whenever you have discussed the relationship between fascism and socialism. You have consistently described fascism as a variety of socialism and throw both under the heading "statism". Far be it for anyone to dare throw the various "strains of liberalism" under the heading liberalism. :laugh:

I have described fascism and communism as different branches of failed socialism.

[Mister D]

And here repetition of claims--just because you say so--and then a straw man attempt at telling me what I believe in when I have argued the opposite.

As I suspected and as we can see above you're lost on the concept of equality. So you don't believe in equality of opportunity and equality before the law? You don't believe in Natural Rights? You believe in none of these things, Chris?

[Chris]

Yes, we do have "different skills" etc. So what? :laugh: Are you done now? You do realize this has ZERO to do with Benoist's argument?

And if we have different skills, desires, interests, etc, we cannot therefore be equal. This is basic to classical liberalism. Benoist misses that.

[Mister D]

I have described fascism and communism as different branches of failed socialism.

But they are all socialist, correct? :grin:

[Mister D]

And if we have different skills, desires, interests, etc, we cannot therefore be equal. This is basic to classical liberalism. Benoist misses that.

Sigh...no, Chris, you're missing it. No one believes that we all have the same skills etc. lol I can only shake my head.

[Chris]

As I suspected and as we can see above you're lost on the concept of equality. So you don't believe in equality of opportunity and equality before the law? You don't believe in Natural Rights? You believe in none of these things, Chris?

Those are different concepts, D, they are not the same as "human equality"--once again you're equivocating.

[Mister D]

And more repetitious ad hom.

I see you can't dodge your own words about "strains of liberalism". That's good. So now that we understand that Benoist focuses on what the "strains of liberalism" have in common and that you were way off on what the concept of human equality refers to perhaps we can proceed...

[Chris]

Sigh...no, Chris, you're missing it. No one believes that we all have the same skills etc. lol I can only shake my head.

What Benoist is missing is that these differences in skills, interests, desires etc form a basis of classical liberalism. Benoist sees only the equality modern liberalism insists upon.

[Mister D]

Those are different concepts, D, they are not the same as "human equality"--once again you're equivocating.

Chris, the "human equality" you refer to is your own construction.

[Chris]

I see you can't dodge your own words about "strains of liberalism". That's good. So now that we understand that Benoist focuses on what the "strains of liberalism" have in common and that you were way off on what the concept of human equality refers to perhaps we can proceed...

I don't intend to "dodge" an important distinction that Benoist clearly overlooks.

[Chris]

Chris, the "human equality" you refer to is your own construction.

Your the one talking about it. Perhaps you could tell us what Benoist means by it.

[Mister D]

What Benoist is missing is that these differences in skills, interests, desires etc form a basis of classical liberalism. Benoist sees only the equality modern liberalism insists upon.

I don't see any liberals insisting that we all have the same skills and desires. Who does that, Chris? :grin:

[Chris]

I don't see any liberals insisting that we all have the same skills and desires. Who does that, Chris? :grin:

Modern liberals insist on things like equal pay, equal opportunity, equalizing past wrongs through hiring and admissions quotas, and so on. This negates the natural differences classical liberals recognize as a basis for liberty.

[Mister D]

Your the one talking about it. Perhaps you could tell us what Benoist means by it.

Next time, try that first! :laugh:


Are all men created equal, Chris? What does that mean?

[Chris]

OK, so the ideas are out there, one that lumps liberalism, one that distinguishes as history has done. Seems to me what Benoist (according to D) is basing his entire criticism on is the notion that all the disagreement betweem conservatives (Republicans, libertarians etc) of a classical liberal bent and liberals (Democrats, socialists, etc) of modern liberal one, all the disagreements we see day in day out in thread after thread, posts after post, is all for nought and ought to be set aside because we're all the same liberals, we should perhaps all come together and sing kumbaya before we fade away in failure. Wonder how many people here buy that, and how many find the lumping equivocation ludicrous.

It is these obvious differences between modern liberals and classical liberal conservatives/libertarians that I'm pointing out that Benoist completely misses.

[Mister D]

Modern liberals insist on things like equal pay, equal opportunity, equalizing past wrongs through hiring and admissions quotas, and so on. This negates the natural differences classical liberals recognize as a basis for liberty.

So no one insists that we all have the same skills and desires. OK then.

"Classical" liberals may very well claim that these practices "negate the natural differences" that are "the basis of liberty" and Benoist acknowledges this. On the other hand, once the genie of equality left the bottle it has been impossible for liberals to contain it. In any case, what we have are the various "strains of liberalism" holding to a common premise of human equality. You bristled earlier when I told you that Benoist argues that socialism is logically consistent in this regard while liberalism is not. Liberalism breeds gross economic inequality and attempts to contain equality to "equality of opportunity" and the like have not worked.

[Chris]

Next time, try that first! :laugh:


Are all men created equal, Chris? What does that mean?

Equal before the law. That is entirely different that French equality.

Equality before the law is focused on subjecting the king to the same laws as citizens.

The difference between the classical liberal view of this and the modern is captured in the saying we are a nation of laws not men.

Benoist misses this difference.

[Mister D]

It is these obvious differences between modern liberals and classical liberal conservatives/libertarians that I'm pointing out that Benoist completely misses.

No, he doesn't Chris. He identified the common premises underlying the various "strains of liberalism". It's all liberalism and you've admitted that already.

[Mister D]

Equal before the law. That is entirely different that French equality.

Equality before the law is focused on subjecting the king to the same laws as citizens.

The difference between the classical liberal view of this and the modern is captured in the saying we are a nation of laws not men.

Benoist misses this difference.

My God! What is it with this guy! :laugh:

Are all men created equal, Chris? What does that mean?

[Mister D]

I don't intend to "dodge" an important distinction that Benoist clearly overlooks.

How does this distinction impact Benoist's observation that the various "strains of liberalism" share the common premises of individualism, universalism, equality etc.?

[Chris]

So no one insists that we all have the same skills and desires. OK then.

"Classical" liberals may very well claim that these practices "negate the natural differences" that are "the basis of liberty" and Benoist acknowledges this. On the other hand, once the genie of equality left the bottle it has been impossible for liberals to contain it. In any case, what we have are the various "strains of liberalism" holding to a common premise of human equality. You bristled earlier when I told you that Benoist argues that socialism is logically consistent in this regard while liberalism is not. Liberalism breeds gross economic inequality and attempts to contain equality to "equality of opportunity" and the like have not worked.


Benoist acknowledges this

Citation, one relevant to your argument, please.


Benoist argues that socialism is logically consistent in this regard while liberalism is not

There's little difference between socialism and modern liberalism.


Liberalism breeds gross economic inequality

If Benoist makes this claim then he is contradicting himself.


attempts to contain equality to "equality of opportunity" and the like have not worked

Inasmuch as this is a criticism of modern liberalism I agree. But it is not a criticism of classical liberalism--what conservative/libertarian argues for "equality of opportunity"?

[Chris]

How does this distinction impact Benoist's observation that the various "strains of liberalism" share the common premises of individualism, universalism, equality etc.?

It counters that claim in terms of equality, his "equality of opportunity" (I'm assuming he says this).

[Chris]

My God! What is it with this guy! :laugh:

Are all men created equal, Chris? What does that mean?

Ad hom is not an argument nor is it an excuse for what I just explained it means.

[Chris]

It is these obvious differences between modern liberals and classical liberal conservatives/libertarians that I'm pointing out that Benoist completely misses.

No, he doesn't Chris. He identified the common premises underlying the various "strains of liberalism". It's all liberalism and you've admitted that already.

Oh, he doesn't miss the differences between classical liberalism and modern liberalism but "It's all liberalism"? That's a contradiction.

If "he doesn't" then can you cite Benoist recognizing these differences?

[Mister D]

Citation, one relevant to your argument, please.

Start with the second fucking paragraph! Lord give me patience...:rollseyes:


There's little difference between socialism and modern liberalism.

You are a modern liberal, Chris.



If Benoist makes this claim then he is contradicting himself.

How so?


Inasmuch as this is a criticism of modern liberalism I agree. But it is not a criticism of classical liberalism--what conservative/libertarian argues for "equality of opportunity"?


Progressives ("modern liberals") don't try to do that, Chris. Classical liberals have and still do. You, for example, don't believe in equality of opportunity? You believe, for example, that legal impediments to an individual advancing his station in life are OK?

[Mister D]

Oh, he doesn't miss the differences between classical liberalism and modern liberalism but "It's all liberalism"? That's a contradiction.

If "he doesn't" then can you cite Benoist recognizing these differences?

You already admitted that he's right when you referred to the various "strains of liberalism". That part of the argument is over.

[Mister D]

Ad hom is not an argument nor is it an excuse for what I just explained it means.

Are all men created equal, Chris? What does that mean? :grin:

[Mister D]

It counters that claim in terms of equality, his "equality of opportunity" (I'm assuming he says this).

So classical liberals did not believe that all men are created equal? :laugh:

[Chris]

Start with the second fucking paragraph! Lord give me patience...:rollseyes:



You are a modern liberal, Chris.




How so?


Progressives ("modern liberals") don't try to do that, Chris. Classical liberals have and still do. You, for example, don't believe in equality of opportunity? You believe, for example, that legal impediments to an individual advancing his station in life are OK?


Start with the second fucking paragraph!

Calm down, discussion ought to be rational rather than so emotional.

The second paragraph of the OP does address the issue of equality. You say Benoist sees both classical and modern liberal as embracing equality. Where does he do this? Citation, please.


You are a modern liberal, Chris.

Again you attempt to tell me what I think. Straw man, not an argument.


How so?

Says the opposite.


Classical liberals have and still do.

Before the law as I explained, on their own effort. Progressives argue it in terms of providing the opportunity. This is the argument over Obama saying you didn't build that. This is what Benoist doesn't get.

[Chris]

You already admitted that he's right when you referred to the various "strains of liberalism". That part of the argument is over.

So Benoist recognizes the differences between classical and modern liberalism, then he contradicts himself saying it's all one liberalism: "to classify them all as liberals". You don't group things based on differences.

[Chris]

Are all men created equal, Chris? What does that mean? :grin:

Post #196.

[Chris]

So classical liberals did not believe that all men are created equal? :laugh:

Why the need to twist what I'm saying with your constant equivocation, D? The classical liberal notion of being created equal before the law is not the same as the modern liberal notion of creating everyone equal through law.

If Benoist does not see the difference, then he is arguing based on the fallacy of equivocation.

I'd really like to see a citation of Benoist where he argues this equality argument you keep repeating, D.

[Mister D]

Why the need to twist what I'm saying with your constant equivocation, D? The classical liberal notion of being created equal before the law is not the same as the modern liberal notion of creating everyone equal through law.

If Benoist does not see the difference, then he is arguing based on the fallacy of equivocation.

I'd really like to see a citation of Benoist where he argues this equality argument you keep repeating, D.

Chris, whether you feel these two concepts of human equality are the same or not is moot. It is a fact that liberals of all stripes champion human equality. Small steps, grasshopper.

[Chris]

Chris, whether you feel these two concepts of human equality are the same or not is moot. It is a fact that liberals of all stripes champion human equality. Small steps, grasshopper.

Again, you merely repeat your equivocation. At that level of discussion one could say classical and modern liberalism are one and the same because they share the word liberal. Or one could deny the distinction in "The classical liberal notion of being created equal before the law is not the same as the modern liberal notion of creating everyone equal through law" by pointing out both use the word equal. Equivocation is usually shallow.

Now asked to cite where Benoist actually discusses equality as basis for his equivocation you cite the first paragraph on the OP.

Let's look at that paragraph, for it says nothing at all about equality.


Not being the work of a single man, liberalism was never presented in
the form of a unified doctrine. Various liberal authors have, at times,
interpreted it in divergent, if not contradictory, ways. Still, they share
enough common points to classify them all as liberals. These common
points also make it possible to define liberalism as a specific school of
thought. On the one hand, liberalism is an economic doctrine that tends to
make the model of the self- regulating market the paradigm of all social
reality: what is called political liberalism is simply one way of applying the
principles deduced from these economic doctrines to political life. This
tends to limit the role of politics as much as possible. (In this sense, one
can say that “liberal politics” is a contradiction in terms.) On the other
hand, liberalism is a doctrine based on an individualistic anthropology, i.e.,
it rests on a conception of man as a being who is not fundamentally social.

What is does say is all liberals share two other common points.

One is to make politics economic, to apply economic principles to politics. On this, yes, classical liberals do, in order to maximize liberty, minimize government. But modern liberals advocate the opposite, maximize government which minimizes liberty. The two, classical and modern liberalism are distinctly different in this respect.

(On his remark that this classical liberal idea is contradictory, that is, the notion that one should run for office to reduce government is somewhat contradictory (one reason I am libertarian but not Libertarian.))

Two is a conception of man as not social. This is a common misconception of modern liberals/socialists criticizing classical liberalism/capitalism. They, modern liberals, and apparently Benoist, see the free market only in terms of the metaphor (and myth) of social Darwinism, of pure competition and survival of the fittest. Classical liberalism however does not argue this, the free market is instead fundamentally social and based on cooperation. The free market is not coercively win-lose but voluntarily win-win. And is so just so long as modern liberal government does not interfere with centrally planned crony capitalism. Again, the two, classical and modern liberalism are distinctly different in this respect.

(On this, one remark, an aside: I believe the classical liberal argument for liberty is to shift governance from government back to society where it belongs, iow, to rely instead on social traditions and institutions (like the free market) rather than a governing body of elite central planners.)

In that paragraph about the only accurate statement is "Various liberal authors have, at times, interpreted it in divergent, if not contradictory, ways." That should clue Benoist in, but he has his preconceptions about political economy and "individualistic anthropology" clouding his vision.

[Mister D]

Calm down, discussion ought to be rational rather than so emotional.

Right. Try being rational. lol You know, you could actually read the essay you're discussing, for example. :laugh:


The second paragraph of the OP does address the issue of equality. You say Benoist sees both classical and modern liberal as embracing equality. Where does he do this? Citation, please.

The argument about equality referred to are not in this essay but what I cited does address the fact that Benoist acknowledges the various "strains of liberalism". Thankfully, we can now put that to rest.



Again you attempt to tell me what I think. Straw man, not an argument.

If you do not wish to own up to your liberalism that's fine. :smiley:



Says the opposite.

Where?


[QUOTE]Before the law as I explained, on their own effort. Progressives argue it in terms of providing the opportunity. This is the argument over Obama saying you didn't build that. This is what Benoist doesn't get[QUOTE]

Sigh...We've established that Benoist acknowledges the various "strains of liberalism". It's been explained to you that Benoist argues that "classicial" liberals have not been able to contain their calls for human equality to legal equality etc. not least because their systen creates gross inequality. It's been explained to you that progressives and socialists simply take the call for human equality to its logical conclusion. Yes, Chris, we know "classical" liberals no likey but that's not the point. benoist doesn't equate all liberalisms but focuses on their shared perconceptions and values. What don;t you understand? :grin:

[Chris]

Right. Try being rational. lol You know, you could actually read the essay you're discussing, for example. :laugh:


The argument about equality referred to are not in this essay but what I cited does address the fact that Benoist acknowledges the various "strains of liberalism". Thankfully, we can now put that to rest.




If you do not wish to own up to your liberalism that's fine. :smiley:




Where?


[QUOTE]Before the law as I explained, on their own effort. Progressives argue it in terms of providing the opportunity. This is the argument over Obama saying you didn't build that. This is what Benoist doesn't get[QUOTE]

Sigh...We've established that Benoist acknowledges the various "strains of liberalism". It's been explained to you that Benoist argues that "classicial" liberals have not been able to contain their calls for human equality to legal equality etc. not least because their systen creates gross inequality. It's been explained to you that progressives and socialists simply take the call for human equality to its logical conclusion. Yes, Chris, we know "classical" liberals no likey but that's not the point. benoist doesn't equate all liberalisms but focuses on their shared perconceptions and values. What don;t you understand? :grin:


The argument about equality referred to are not in this essay

Ah, but you earlier said it was in this essay, in fact, you said "Start with the second fucking paragraph!"


Where?

Already pointed out, but again: You say "We've established that Benoist acknowledges the various "strains of liberalism"." That contradicts his "Still, they share enough common points to classify them all as liberals." You simply cannot base classification on differences. Equality he does not discuss as you now admit. I have addressed his two misconceptions above.


Yes, Chris, we know "classical" liberals no likey but that's not the point.

Incoherent.


benoist doesn't equate all liberalisms

So which is it, does he or doesn't he?

[Mister D]

Again, you merely repeat your equivocation. At that level of discussion one could say classical and modern liberalism are one and the same because they share the word liberal. Or one could deny the distinction in "The classical liberal notion of being created equal before the law is not the same as the modern liberal notion of creating everyone equal through law" by pointing out both use the word equal. Equivocation is usually shallow.

Sigh...

No one is equivocating, Chris. This is what you seem stuck on. Again, classical liberals could not contain the call for equality. Per Benoist, it simply did not go far enough and left classical liberalism in a state of schizophrenia. On the one hand, liberals champion human equality. All men are creatyed equal yet the liberal economic system generates gross inequality. Therefore, liberals have been unable to contain the call for equality to the legal sphere. History demonstrates that this simply isn't possible. How many times does this need to be explained to you? Liberals inaugurated the age of equality and this concept has had a relentless logic of its own. No one is saying that all liberalisms are the same but that they are all founded on shared premises. Human equality is one of them. That progressives, for example, expanded this concept to include other spheres of life does not make progressivism a different animal. They accept the same anthorpology and the same values of individualism, equality, universalism etc.



Now asked to cite where Benoist actually discusses equality as basis for his equivocation you cite the first paragraph on the OP.

Let's look at that paragraph, for it says nothing at all about equality.

The argument regarding the effects of the call for equality is not made in this essay. I've established that Benoist acknowledges that liberalism is not monolithic. That argument is over.



What is does say is all liberals share two other common points.

One is to make politics economic, to apply economic principles to politics. On this, yes, classical liberals do, in order to maximize liberty, minimize government. But modern liberals advocate the opposite, maximize government which minimizes liberty. The two, classical and modern liberalism are distinctly different in this respect..

The various "strains of liberalism" (your term) share common premises, Chris. The arguments between the various branches of liberalism are immaterial.


Two is a conception of man as not social. This is a common misconception of modern liberals/socialists criticizing classical liberalism/capitalism. They, modern liberals, and apparently Benoist, see the free market only in terms of the metaphor (and myth) of social Darwinism, of pure competition and survival of the fittest. Classical liberalism however does not argue this, the free market is instead fundamentally social and based on cooperation. The free market is not coercively win-lose but voluntarily win-win. And is so just so long as modern liberal government does not interfere with centrally planned crony capitalism. Again, the two, classical and modern liberalism are distinctly different in this respect.

Again with the "classical" versus "modern" liberalism. :laugh: Anyway, Benoistargues that liberal anthropology envisions a man who is not fundamentally social. In addressing this contention, you talk about social Darwinism and the market. Why?


In the modern sense of the term, individualism is the philosophy that
regards the individual as the only reality and takes him as the principle of
every evaluation. The individual is considered in himself, in abstraction
from his social or cultural context. While holism expresses or justifies
existing society in reference to values that are inherited, passed on, and
shared, i.e., in the last analysis, in reference to society itself, individualism
establishes its values independently of society as it finds it. This is why it
does not recognize the autonomous status of communities, peoples,
cultures, or nations. For it sees these entities as nothing but sums of
individual atoms, which alone have value.





In that paragraph about the only accurate statement is "Various liberal authors have, at times, interpreted it in divergent, if not contradictory, ways." That should clue Benoist in, but he has his preconceptions about political economy and "individualistic anthropology" clouding his vision.

Clue him into what, Chris? That the various "strains of liberalism" are not exactly the same? :laugh: He doesn't argue that. Good grief...

[Mister D]

[QUOTE=Mister D;133551]Right. Try being rational. lol You know, you could actually read the essay you're discussing, for example. :laugh:


The argument about equality referred to are not in this essay but what I cited does address the fact that Benoist acknowledges the various "strains of liberalism". Thankfully, we can now put that to rest.




If you do not wish to own up to your liberalism that's fine. :smiley:




Where?


[QUOTE]Before the law as I explained, on their own effort. Progressives argue it in terms of providing the opportunity. This is the argument over Obama saying you didn't build that. This is what Benoist doesn't get



Ah, but you earlier said it was in this essay, in fact, you said "Start with the second fucking paragraph!"



Already pointed out, but again: You say "We've established that Benoist acknowledges the various "strains of liberalism"." That contradicts his "Still, they share enough common points to classify them all as liberals." You simply cannot base classification on differences. Equality he does not discuss as you now admit. I have addressed his two misconceptions above.



Incoherent.



So which is it, does he or doesn't he?

Chris, I can't make much of this out.

Anyway, we can dispense with the idea that Benoist equates of liberalisms. He explicitly does not.

Now you say these two actions are in contradiction:

1. An acknowledgement of the various strains of liberalism

2. An acknowledgment that there are enough common points to classify them all as liberals

Chris, isn't that presupposed when you refer to the various "strains of lberalism"? You can't make this shit up! :smiley_ROFLMAO:Where is the contradiction?

You simply can't base classification on differences? Who has? :huh: Benoist is basing it on commonalties.

Last, he discusses equality quite a bit. It's just not in this essay, silly.

[Mister D]

I have described fascism and communism as different branches of failed socialism.


But they are all socialist, correct? :grin:

But they are both described using the term "socialism". Right, Chris? :grin:

[Chris]

Sigh...

No one is equivocating, Chris. This is what you seem stuck on. Again, classical liberals could not contain the call for equality. Per Benoist, it simply did not go far enough and left classical liberalism in a state of schizophrenia. On the one hand, liberals champion human equality. All men are creatyed equal yet the liberal economic system generates gross inequality. Therefore, liberals have been unable to contain the call for equality to the legal sphere. History demonstrates that this simply isn't possible. How many times does this need to be explained to you? Liberals inaugurated the age of equality and this concept has had a relentless logic of its own. No one is saying that all liberalisms are the same but that they are all founded on shared premises. Human equality is one of them. That progressives, for example, expanded this concept to include other spheres of life does not make progressivism a different animal. They accept the same anthorpology and the same values of individualism, equality, universalism etc.




The argument regarding the effects of the call for equality is not made in this essay. I've established that Benoist acknowledges that liberalism is not monolithic. That argument is over.

.

The various "strains of liberalism" (your term) share common premises, Chris. The arguments between the various branches of liberalism are immaterial.



Again with the "classical" versus "modern" liberalism. :laugh: Anyway, Benoistargues that liberal anthropology envisions a man who is not fundamentally social. In addressing this contention, you talk about social Darwinism and the market. Why?







Clue him into what, Chris? That the various "strains of liberalism" are not exactly the same? :laugh: He doesn't argue that. Good grief...


No one is equivocating, Chris. This is what you seem stuck on.

Either Benoist is, or you are in your interpretation of him. You continue to equivocate classical and modern liberalism.

"The term "liberal" changed meaning in the 1930s. Since then Classical Liberals are called "Conservatives" or "Libertarians" in the United States; in the rest of the world, especially Europe and Japan, classical liberals are still called liberals." http://conservapedia.com/Classical_Liberal

Thus, what you are arguing is conservatism is liberalism. That's absurd.


Again, classical liberals could not contain the call for equality.

Ah, so if classical liberals tried to contain the call for equality, they were thus against it. Thank you.


Per Benoist, it simply did not go far enough and left classical liberalism in a state of schizophrenia.

If thus divided, classical and modern liberalism are distinct. Again, thank you.


On the one hand, liberals champion human equality.

Indeed, modern liberalism does, but as you said, classical liberalism tries to contain it, opposes it.


No one is saying that all liberalisms are the same but that they are all founded on shared premises. Human equality is one of them.

That's been shown false. But I ask you again to please cite where Benoist argues this. Earlier you said it was in the fucking OP, then you said it wasn't. So where does he argue this? Does he argue this?


They accept the same anthorpology

You have a remarkable way of ignoring what I posted in response to Benoist claiming this "anthorpology". Note he did not claim as you did " individualism, equality, universalism etc.", rather he claimed "liberalism is a doctrine based on an individualistic anthropology, i.e., it rests on a conception of man as a being who is not fundamentally social." I think you need to distinguish what Benoist is saying from what you are saying. I addressed above what he said, you ignore that.


I've established that Benoist acknowledges that liberalism is not monolithic.

Good then classical and modern liberalism are not the same despite Benoist's arguing they are.


The various "strains of liberalism" (your term) share common premises, Chris. The arguments between the various branches of liberalism are immaterial.

So far you have presented equality as a common premise, and I have countered that. Benoist in the OP argues political economy and individualistic anthropology as common premises, and I have countered those. Those counters are based on the argument between classical and modern liberals. If what different liberals argue is immaterial, then what could possibly be the basis of your and Benoist's arguments.


Again with the "classical" versus "modern" liberalism.

Uh, yes, that is the crux of the biscuit here, whether or not classical and modern liberalism are the same as you/Benoist argue, or different as nearly everyone on this forum argues. I understand you're wanting to push it aside, but Benoist predicates his argument on their being the same when obviously they're not.


Benoistargues that liberal anthropology envisions a man who is not fundamentally social. In addressing this contention, you talk about social Darwinism and the market. Why?

Be specific in what you fail to understand about the difference between the market being competitive or cooperative.


Clue him into what, Chris? That the various "strains of liberalism" are not exactly the same? He doesn't argue that. Good grief...

OK, so now you've undermined the entire basis of his criticism of liberalism. If they are different as I've argued, and not the same as he has, in terms of common premises, then he has no argument.

[Chris]

[QUOTE=Chris;133558][QUOTE=Mister D;133551]Right. Try being rational. lol You know, you could actually read the essay you're discussing, for example. :laugh:


The argument about equality referred to are not in this essay but what I cited does address the fact that Benoist acknowledges the various "strains of liberalism". Thankfully, we can now put that to rest.




If you do not wish to own up to your liberalism that's fine. :smiley:




Where?




Chris, I can't make much of this out.

Anyway, we can dispense with the idea that Benoist equates of liberalisms. He explicitly does not.

Now you say these two actions are in contradiction:

1. An acknowledgement of the various strains of liberalism

2. An acknowledgment that there are enough common points to classify them all as liberals

Chris, isn't that presupposed when you refer to the various "strains of lberalism"? You can't make this shit up! :smiley_ROFLMAO:Where is the contradiction?

You simply can't base classification on differences? Who has? :huh: Benoist is basing it on commonalties.

Last, he discusses equality quite a bit. It's just not in this essay, silly.


Anyway, we can dispense with the idea that Benoist equates of liberalisms. He explicitly does not.

So then he explicitly acknowledges that classical and modern liberalism differ in their premises? That is what I'm arguing about.


Where is the contradiction?

Ignoring your histrionics, I have already explained the contradiction. Classical and modern liberalism are not the same, not similar, do not share common premises. Benoist's claim they are and do is the basis of his essay. His premise fails.


You simply can't base classification on differences? Who has? Benoist is basing it on commonalties.

There are none. Classical and modern liberalism do not share as common premises equality as you (not Benoist in the OP) argue, nor political economy or individualistic anthropology as Benoist argues. You have completely ignored my counterarguments to these points.


Last, he discusses equality quite a bit. It's just not in this essay

And you have been asked repeatedly to cite such discussion. Remember, in the context of both classical and modern liberalism sharing equality as you have expressed it.

[Chris]

I have described fascism and communism as different branches of failed socialism.

But they are both described using the term "socialism". Right, Chris? :grin:
If you equivocate further, then all political positions are political, all -isms are just that, -isms. Reductio ad absurdum.

[Mister D]

1. No one is arguing that all liberalisms are the same. Benoist states explicitly that this is not the case.

2. Yes, classical liberals tried to contain the call (their call) for equality to particular spheres of human life. I'm not sure where you got the idea they were against equality.

3. Again, no one claimed that all liberalisms are texactly the same. How many times does that need tio be explained?

4. No, classical liberalism does not stand against equality. They tried to contain it to particular spheres of life. They failed. Classical liberals let the equality genie out of the bottle. It's their philosophical child.

5. It has not been shown to be false. You're just conmfused by what equality means. Where Benoist argues this about equality is moot. Does it matter? If you want I can get you the title and let you know where you can order it. :smiley:

6. What you've posted doesn't touch on Benoist's argument. The ideal of human equality is a child of liberalism. I'm not sure why you are having such difficulty accepting that. You keep insisting on a difference between how liberals initially envisioned it and what it gradually came to mean. You act as if this proves Benoist wrong but that's Benoist's whole point! The concept of equality was ultimately and rather quickly applied to other spheres of life because the logic of equality leads there.

7. LOL! No one has argued that liberalisms are all the same. =) Really...

8. You havem't countered any of these Chris and you've already admitted that he is right. Why else would you say "strains of liberalism" unless you are fully aware that liberalism has been expressed in sometimes divergent ways but has underlying core principles? Benoist is right and you agree.

9. Sigh...no one has argued that classical liberalism and progressivism are the same. No one. Isn;t it time you gave that up? It's hindering discussion.

10. I cited Benoist. He didn't mention the market in the passage cited. Address what is actually argued.

11. LOL! You've already admitted that Benoist is correct. Remember "strains of liberalism"?

[Mister D]

If you equivocate further, then all political positions are political, all -isms are just that, -isms. Reductio ad absurdum.

Just spotlighting your incosistency. It's OK for you to lump all socialisms together but God forbid anyone do that with Chris' ideology! :wink:

[Mister D]

[QUOTE=Mister D;133611][QUOTE=Chris;133558]



So then he explicitly acknowledges that classical and modern liberalism differ in their premises? That is what I'm arguing about.

No, he argues that hey share common premises. That's why they are all refred to as liberalism. You've done the same thing. That argument is over.


Ignoring your histrionics, I have already explained the contradiction. Classical and modern liberalism are not the same, not similar, do not share common premises. Benoist's claim they are and do is the basis of his essay. His premise fails.

No one claimed they were the same thing but they do in fact share common premises. This is obvious and you agree. "Strains of liberalism"...


There are none. Classical and modern liberalism do not share as common premises equality as you (not Benoist in the OP) argue, nor political economy or individualistic anthropology as Benoist argues. You have completely ignored my counterarguments to these points.

Of course there are. The problem was that classical liberal formulations of equality could not last. They became victims of their own logic. What does it mean to be equal? How can we be equal when there is so much inequality? These questions quickly and easily carried the concept of equality along to its logical conclusion. I know that upsets you. I guess it should.


And you have been asked repeatedly to cite such discussion. Remember, in the context of both classical and modern liberalism sharing equality as you have expressed it.

I'll find it for you tonight, Chris. :smiley:

[Chris]

1. No one is arguing that all liberalisms are the same. Benoist states explicitly that this is not the case.

2. Yes, classical liberals tried to contain the call (their call) for equality to particular spheres of human life. I'm not sure where you got the idea they were against equality.

3. Again, no one claimed that all liberalisms are texactly the same. How many times does that need tio be explained?

4. No, classical liberalism does not stand against equality. They tried to contain it to particular spheres of life. They failed. Classical liberals let the equality genie out of the bottle. It's their philosophical child.

5. It has not been shown to be false. You're just conmfused by what equality means. Where Benoist argues this about equality is moot. Does it matter? If you want I can get you the title and let you know where you can order it. :smiley:

6. What you've posted doesn't touch on Benoist's argument. The ideal of human equality is a child of liberalism. I'm not sure why you are having such difficulty accepting that. You keep insisting on a difference between how liberals initially envisioned it and what it gradually came to mean. You act as if this proves Benoist wrong but that's Benoist's whole point! The concept of equality was ultimately and rather quickly applied to other spheres of life because the logic of equality leads there.

7. LOL! No one has argued that liberalisms are all the same. =) Really...

8. You havem't countered any of these Chris and you've already admitted that he is right. Why else would you say "strains of liberalism" unless you are fully aware that liberalism has been expressed in sometimes divergent ways but has underlying core principles? Benoist is right and you agree.

9. Sigh...no one has argued that classical liberalism and progressivism are the same. No one. Isn;t it time you gave that up? It's hindering discussion.

10. I cited Benoist. He didn't mention the market in the passage cited. Address what is actually argued.

11. LOL! You've already admitted that Benoist is correct. Remember "strains of liberalism"?

Do you really think if you repeat yourself enough someone will believe you?

Classical and modern liberalism are not only not the same but not even similar nor are they based on common premises. For you to try and reduce this argument to "No one is arguing that all liberalisms are the same" is just another example of equivocation.


classical liberals tried to contain the call (their call) for equality to particular spheres of human life. I'm not sure where you got the idea they were against equality.

As I've argued several times and you have ignored, the classical liberalism notion of equality differs diametrically from that of modern liberalism.

Skipping several repetitions of the same...


You're just conmfused by what equality means.

Rather you equivocate the classical and modern liberal notions of equality.

Skipping more repetitions of the same...


You havem't countered any of these Chris and you've already admitted that he is right.

Making things up now are we, D? Just another case of you arguing straw men.


I cited Benoist.

On the common premise of equality shared by classical and modern liberalism? Oh? Where? You first said look at the OP, then admitted several times now it's not there. I really wish you would cite him on this point.


He didn't mention the market in the passage cited.

Oh? Here again is the passage cited:

Not being the work of a single man, liberalism was never presented in
the form of a unified doctrine. Various liberal authors have, at times,
interpreted it in divergent, if not contradictory, ways. Still, they share
enough common points to classify them all as liberals. These common
points also make it possible to define liberalism as a specific school of
thought. On the one hand, liberalism is an economic doctrine that tends to
make the model of the self- regulating market the paradigm of all social
reality: what is called political liberalism is simply one way of applying the
principles deduced from these economic doctrines to political life. This
tends to limit the role of politics as much as possible. (In this sense, one
can say that “liberal politics” is a contradiction in terms.) On the other
hand, liberalism is a doctrine based on an individualistic anthropology, i.e.,
it rests on a conception of man as a being who is not fundamentally social.

Think you need to read Benoist more closely.

[Chris]

Just spotlighting your incosistency. It's OK for you to lump all socialisms together but God forbid anyone do that with Chris' ideology! :wink:

Again, where did I do that, D? Citation, please, if you're not just making it up.

[Chris]

No, he argues that hey share common premises. That's why they are all refred to as liberalism. You've done the same thing. That argument is over.



No one claimed they were the same thing but they do in fact share common premises. This is obvious and you agree. "Strains of liberalism"...



Of course there are. The problem was that classical liberal formulations of equality could not last. They became victims of their own logic. What does it mean to be equal? How can we be equal when there is so much inequality? These questions quickly and easily carried the concept of equality along to its logical conclusion. I know that upsets you. I guess it should.



I'll find it for you tonight, Chris. :smiley:


No, he argues that hey share common premises. That's why they are all refred to as liberalism. You've done the same thing. That argument is over.

But they do not share the common premises of equality (as you argue), political economy or individualist anthropology (as Benoiost argues). I have countered each of these and you have ignored those counters to instead return to and repeat yourself.

That's what the argument here is all about.

Ignoring further repetitions....


The problem was that classical liberal formulations of equality could not last. They became victims of their own logic. What does it mean to be equal? How can we be equal when there is so much inequality? These questions quickly and easily carried the concept of equality along to its logical conclusion.

Are you talking about classical notions or modern liberal notions? Be clear, please. They are distinctly different.

[Chris]

Let me summarize through citations the argument thus far point and counterpoint on individualistic anthropology, political economy, and equality:


Not being the work of a single man, liberalism was never presented in
the form of a unified doctrine. Various liberal authors have, at times,
interpreted it in divergent, if not contradictory, ways.


In that paragraph about the only accurate statement is "Various liberal authors have, at times, interpreted it in divergent, if not contradictory, ways." That should clue Benoist in, but he has his preconceptions about political economy and "individualistic anthropology" clouding his vision.

Individualistic anthropology:


Still, they share
enough common points to classify them all as liberals. These common
points also make it possible to define liberalism as a specific school of
thought.


What is does say is all liberals share two other common points.

Political economy:


On the one hand, liberalism is an economic doctrine that tends to
make the model of the self- regulating market the paradigm of all social
reality: what is called political liberalism is simply one way of applying the
principles deduced from these economic doctrines to political life. This
tends to limit the role of politics as much as possible. (In this sense, one
can say that “liberal politics” is a contradiction in terms.)


One is to make politics economic, to apply economic principles to politics. On this, yes, classical liberals do, in order to maximize liberty, minimize government. But modern liberals advocate the opposite, maximize government which minimizes liberty. The two, classical and modern liberalism are distinctly different in this respect.

(On his remark that this classical liberal idea is contradictory, that is, the notion that one should run for office to reduce government is somewhat contradictory (one reason I am libertarian but not Libertarian.))


On the other
hand, liberalism is a doctrine based on an individualistic anthropology, i.e.,
it rests on a conception of man as a being who is not fundamentally social.


Two is a conception of man as not social. This is a common misconception of modern liberals/socialists criticizing classical liberalism/capitalism. They, modern liberals, and apparently Benoist, see the free market only in terms of the metaphor (and myth) of social Darwinism, of pure competition and survival of the fittest. Classical liberalism however does not argue this, the free market is instead fundamentally social and based on cooperation. The free market is not coercively win-lose but voluntarily win-win. And is so just so long as modern liberal government does not interfere with centrally planned crony capitalism. Again, the two, classical and modern liberalism are distinctly different in this respect.

(On this, one remark, an aside: I believe the classical liberal argument for liberty is to shift governance from government back to society where it belongs, iow, to rely instead on social traditions and institutions (like the free market) rather than a governing body of elite central planners.)

Equality:


It is a fact that liberals of all stripes champion human equality.

The classical liberal notion of being created equal before the law is not the same as the modern liberal notion of creating everyone equal through law.

[AZFlyFisher]

Are you still here? :laugh: Let us know when you can cite this supposed argument. Thanks.

I was mistaken. I should have said someone who pretends to be an adult.

My point was proven and I posted a link to Benoist's article. You failed to comprehend. So be it.

[Mister D]

I was mistaken. I should have said someone who pretends to be an adult.

My point was proven and I posted a link to Benoist's article. You failed to comprehend. So be it.

You still here? :laugh: Let us know when you can cite this supposed argument. Thanks.

[Mister D]

Do you really think if you repeat yourself enough someone will believe you?

That Benoist doesn't equate all liberalisms as you keep insitsing he does? Anyone who got passed the title would realize that. I'm just telling you. :grin:


Classical and modern liberalism are not only not the same but not even similar nor are they based on common premises. For you to try and reduce this argument to "No one is arguing that all liberalisms are the same" is just another example of equivocation.

Chris, you unwittingly admitted that Benoist was right when you said "strains of liberalism". That presupposes commonalities. Secondly, you keep saying that Benoist is equating all liberalisms. :laugh: I'm telling you that that just isn't so. He states this explicitly.


As I've argued several times and you have ignored, the classical liberalism notion of equality differs diametrically from that of modern liberalism.

You've claimed this repeatedly.


Skipping several repetitions of the same...

Kind of like you skipped over the essay? :laugh:


Rather you equivocate the classical and modern liberal notions of equality.

No one has done this. You're still confused. This reminds me of when you attempted to critique The Irrational Atheist. You were impossible to reason with. :rollseyes:




Making things up now are we, D? Just another case of you arguing straw men.

"Strains of liberalism" presupposes commonalities. Granted, I know this is just your pride acting up. Suck it up, Chris.


On the common premise of equality shared by classical and modern liberalism? Oh? Where? You first said look at the OP, then admitted several times now it's not there. I really wish you would cite him on this point.

Does it matter where he argues this? Again, I'll get the title for you if you want. :smiley: Again, we know Benoist does not equate all liberalisms. Why do you insist on reinforcing a failed critique?




Oh? Here again is the passage cited:


Think you need to read Benoist more closely.


In reference to Man's sociality this was the passage cited, liar:


In the modern sense of the term, individualism is the philosophy that
regards the individual as the only reality and takes him as the principle of
every evaluation. The individual is considered in himself, in abstraction
from his social or cultural context. While holism expresses or justifies
existing society in reference to values that are inherited, passed on, and
shared, i.e., in the last analysis, in reference to society itself, individualism
establishes its values independently of society as it finds it. This is why it
does not recognize the autonomous status of communities, peoples,
cultures, or nations. For it sees these entities as nothing but sums of
individual atoms, which alone have value.


It was in response to this bit of rambling:


Two is a conception of man as not social. This is a common misconception of modern liberals/socialists criticizing classical liberalism/capitalism. They, modern liberals, and apparently Benoist, see the free market only in terms of the metaphor (and myth) of social Darwinism, of pure competition and survival of the fittest. Classical liberalism however does not argue this, the free market is instead fundamentally social and based on cooperation. The free market is not coercively win-lose but voluntarily win-win. And is so just so long as modern liberal government does not interfere with centrally planned crony capitalism. Again, the two, classical and modern liberalism are distinctly different in this respect.

Think you need to read your own comments more closely. :wink: Better still, Benoist is correct in that "liberalism is an economic doctrine that tends to make the model of the self- regulating market the paradigm of all social reality". Sorry, nothing about Social Darwinism, metaphors and myths, Chrissy. Try again and try to be serious this time.

[Mister D]

Again, where did I do that, D? Citation, please, if you're not just making it up.

You just did! :smiley_ROFLMAO:


I have described fascism and communism as different branches of failed socialism.

I can't believe this guy!

[Chris]

D, you respond with nothing but circling back to the same old repetitious claims, ad hom and straw men.

[Mister D]

Originally Posted by Benoist Not being the work of a single man, liberalism was never presented in
the form of a unified doctrine. Various liberal authors have, at times,
interpreted it in divergent, if not contradictory, ways.




http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Chris
In that paragraph about the only accurate statement is "Various liberal authors have, at times, interpreted it in divergent, if not contradictory, ways." That should clue Benoist in, but he has his preconceptions about political economy and "individualistic anthropology" clouding his vision.





Watch this...

Chris says that there is only one accurate statement in Benoist's quote. :laugh: But he's only stating a single idea! Yes, Chris, it's quite accurate. Thanks for admitting it! If different liberals have interpreted it in different ways then obviously it's never been presented as a unified doctrine! Moreover, here we have Benoist acknowledging the diveristy in liberal thought yet Chris repeatedly claims Benoist argues all liberals are the same. You can't make this shit up!

You do my work for me. I appreciate it. :smiley:

[Mister D]

D, you respond with nothing but circling back to the same old repetitious claims, ad hom and straw men.

:laugh: Chris, you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again even when it's clearly false. For example, Benoist does not equate all liberals or liberalisms. Seriously, you need to take a day or two to absorb what soemone is saying. You react too quickly, say something stupid, and then your prisde kicks in. It sucks for the forum.

[Chris]

Watch this...

Chris says that there is only one accurate statement in Benoist's quote. :laugh: But he's only stating a single idea! Yes, Chris, it's quite accurate. Thanks for admitting it! If different liberals have interpreted it in different ways then obviously it's never been presented as a unified doctrine! Moreover, here we have Benoist acknowledging the diveristy in liberal thought yet Chris repeatedly claims Benoist argues all liberals are the same. You can't make this shit up!

You do my work for me. I appreciate it. :smiley:

Another nice attempt at putting words in my mouth. Ptuey.

[Chris]

:laugh: Chris, you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again even when it's clearly false. For example, Benoist does not equate all liberals or liberalisms. Seriously, you need to take a day or two to absorb what soemone is saying. You react too quickly, say something stupid, and then your prisde kicks in. It sucks for the forum.

More ad hom, straw men, and repetitious claims.

When you wish to rationally discuss the topic let me know.

[Chris]

BTW, where's this citation of Benoist saying equality is a premise common to both classical and modern liberals--no, not just the same word, but the same concept when, and I repeat because you fail to address it, "The classical liberal notion of being created equal before the law is not the same as the modern liberal notion of creating everyone equal through law."

You're promised contribution of this would be something new to discuss!

[Mister D]

Another nice attempt at putting words in my mouth. Ptuey.

Put words in your mouth? I'm quoting you directly.


Originally Posted by Benoist Not being the work of a single man, liberalism was never presented in
the form of a unified doctrine. Various liberal authors have, at times,
interpreted it in divergent, if not contradictory, ways.



http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Chris
In that paragraph about the only accurate statement is "Various liberal authors have, at times, interpreted it in divergent, if not contradictory, ways." That should clue Benoist in, but he has his preconceptions about political economy and "individualistic anthropology" clouding his vision.

Thank you for admitting (albeit unwittingly) that Benoist acknowledges the diversity in liberalism and does not argue that all liberals or liberalisms are the same.

[Mister D]

BTW, where's this citation of Benoist saying equality is a premise common to both classical and modern liberals--no, not just the same word, but the same concept when, and I repeat because you fail to address it, "The classical liberal notion of being created equal before the law is not the same as the modern liberal notion of creating everyone equal through law."

You're promised contribution of this would be something new to discuss!

No one said they were the same, Chris. :laugh: Benoist's view has been explained to you several times now.

[Mister D]

More ad hom, straw men, and repetitious claims.

When you wish to rationally discuss the topic let me know.

So you acknowledge that Benoist does not equate all liberalism and liberals? Can we get passed what has been holding up rational discussion for days now? Thankfully, we've gotten passed the kneejerk accusations of socialism.

[Chris]

BTW, where's this citation of Benoist saying equality is a premise common to both classical and modern liberals--no, not just the same word, but the same concept when, and I repeat because you fail to address it, "The classical liberal notion of being created equal before the law is not the same as the modern liberal notion of creating everyone equal through law."

You're promised contribution of this would be something new to discuss!


http://i.snag.gy/s12Xa.jpg

[Mister D]

So you acknowledge that Benoist does not equate all liberalism and liberals? Can we get passed what has been holding up rational discussion for days now? Thankfully, we've gotten passed the kneejerk accusations of socialism.

http://i.snag.gy/s12Xa.jpg

[Mister D]

http://i.snag.gy/s12Xa.jpg

We've been discussing it! :smiley_ROFLMAO:Again, he did not say it was exactly the same. Benoist's position has been explained to you multiple times.

[Mister D]

Put words in your mouth? I'm quoting you directly.



Originally Posted by Benoist Not being the work of a single man, liberalism was never presented in
the form of a unified doctrine. Various liberal authors have, at times,
interpreted it in divergent, if not contradictory, ways.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Chris
In that paragraph about the only accurate statement is "Various liberal authors have, at times, interpreted it in divergent, if not contradictory, ways." That should clue Benoist in, but he has his preconceptions about political economy and "individualistic anthropology" clouding his vision.


Thank you for admitting (albeit unwittingly) that Benoist acknowledges the diversity in liberalism and does not argue that all liberals or liberalisms are the same.

Bump :smiley:

[Chris]

What we've been discussion is Benoist's claiming classical and modern liberalism share three premises: equality, individualism and political economy as outlined in the following. That was posted yesterday to show the discussion has stood still since because you have failed to address my counterarguments with anything but logical fallacies, equivocation, ad hom, straw man, etc none of which are worthy of addressing.

Once again, economics, individualism, equality:

economics:


On the one hand, liberalism is an economic doctrine that tends to
make the model of the self- regulating market the paradigm of all social
reality: what is called political liberalism is simply one way of applying the
principles deduced from these economic doctrines to political life. This
tends to limit the role of politics as much as possible. (In this sense, one
can say that “liberal politics” is a contradiction in terms.)

On this, yes, classical liberals do, in order to maximize liberty, minimize government. But modern liberals advocate the opposite, maximize government which minimizes liberty. The two, classical and modern liberalism are distinctly different in this respect.

individualism:


On the other
hand, liberalism is a doctrine based on an individualistic anthropology, i.e.,
it rests on a conception of man as a being who is not fundamentally social.

Classical liberalism however does not argue this, the free market is instead fundamentally social and based on cooperation. The free market is not coercively win-lose but voluntarily win-win. And is so just so long as modern liberal government does not interfere with centrally planned crony capitalism. Again, the two, classical and modern liberalism are distinctly different in this respect.
equality:


It is a fact that liberals of all stripes champion human equality.

The classical liberal notion of being created equal before the law is not the same as the modern liberal notion of creating everyone equal through law.

Classical and modern liberalism differ on all three premises. Benoist's (and D's) premises fail.


* D first claimed the OP made this point then admitted it did not but Benoist claimed it elsewhere which he has promised but failed to produce.

[Mister D]

What we've been discussion is Benoist's claiming classical and modern liberalism share three premises: equality, individualism and political economy as outlined in the following. That was posted yesterday to show the discussion has stood still since because you have failed to address my counterarguments with anything but logical fallacies, equivocation, ad hom, straw man, etc none of which are worthy of addressing.

No, you've been discussing first Benoist's supposed socialism, then his supposed claim that all liberalism is exactly same, and now his supposed claim that all liberal concepts of human equality are exactly the same. None of that has been argued by Benoist. You often say stupid things, defend them for days and then try to modify your argument hoping no one will notice. It's obvious. It's also obnoxious.


economics:

Again, the disagreements over the role of the state among liberals are immaterial.



individualism:

You have not addressed Benoit's comments on individualism. He does not refer to the market, metaphors, or myth. I'll paste the citation for you again. Address it.


In the modern sense of the term, individualism is the philosophy that
regards the individual as the only reality and takes him as the principle of
every evaluation. The individual is considered in himself, in abstraction
from his social or cultural context. While holism expresses or justifies
existing society in reference to values that are inherited, passed on, and
shared, i.e., in the last analysis, in reference to society itself, individualism
establishes its values independently of society as it finds it. This is why it
does not recognize the autonomous status of communities, peoples,
cultures, or nations. For it sees these entities as nothing but sums of
individual atoms, which alone have value.


Notice that Chris refuses to address what Benoist actually writes but instead throws us a red herring about markets, metaphors, and myths.



equality:

Benoist does not claim that all concepts of equality are the ame. In fact, that they differ is implied by his argument! :laugh:



Classical and modern liberalism differ on all three premises. Benoist's (and D's) premises fail.



Chris, you have yet to address Benoist's arguments. You've been attacking the strawmen described above, i.e., his supposed socialism, claim that all liberalisms are the same, and that all liberal concepts of equality are the same.


* D first claimed the OP made this point then admitted it did not but Benoist claimed it elsewhere which he has promised but failed to produce.\

Does it matter where Benoist argues this? Again, if you'd like the title I can get it for you. :smiley: In my own good time of course. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter.

[Chris]

Nice digressions, but it is your thread to ruin. And the repitition is boring.

[Mister D]

Nice digressions, but it is your thread to ruin. And the repitition is boring.

You have no response because you have been called out on what appear to be straw man arguments but let's be clear. They aren't astraw man arguments. You have emotional reactions to criticism and tend to see what you want to see. I sometimes wonder if you consult a handbook of canned libertarian responses.

Anyway, you've ruined yet another thread with your pride. You have a nasty habit of doing that.

[Chris]

Boring and boorish.