Seeds of Collectivism

[Chris]

Well, Levin is the alt right master, so if you don't want him mentioned then stop repeating his BS.

And as for the video, I'm not going to spend one second of 55 minutes listening to outright lies about my country or the people in it.

So you admit you're just blathering idiotic things unrelated to the topic.

[Chris]

Your thread isn't about this either:



So why don't you go yell at him.

He's reacting to your idiocy, making fun of you, but you're the one wrecking another thread.

[jet57]

So you admit you're just blathering idiotic things unrelated to the topic.

(chuckle)

I admit that I’m not buying you BS and correctly attaching your thinking to an unAmerican BS artist, yes.

[jet57]

He's reacting to your idiocy, making fun of you, but you're the one wrecking another thread.

No, he’s trolling your thread.

[Chris]

Here's a follow-up discussion by the same three on the philosophical roots of collectivism. It's heady stuff, but a serious topic, and I hope for good honest responses.

It begins with a statement that pre-modern philosophy held that morality precedes politics and that the political must be bound by the moral. In the mid-1800s, with "Kierkegaard, in the 1840s and Marx 1840s 1850s 1860s and then Nietzsche is a hollowing out and a setting aside of morality for political purposes."

The blurb:

In the previous episode of Sovereign Nations’s Changing Tides, The Seeds of Collectivism, James Lindsay, Stephen Hicks and Michael O’Fallon began with the metaphysical collectivist thought of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. They then examined Hegel and Kant, and concluded with Dr. Hicks’s assertion that if it weren’t for the success of the Russian Revolution, Marx would be considered a second or third tier philosopher.

As the team begins Encroaching Darkness, Dr. Hicks brings the conversation from Marx and into the existentialists and their emphasis on the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.

Dr. LIndsay analyzes Gramsci and his concepts of cultural Marxism. Dr. Hicks then provides a broad overview and remarked that the early 20th century highlighted the concept of false consciousness. Both men discuss the Frankfurt School and the influence of the critical theorists. The discussion progresses to Maoism with Dr. Lindsay making the statement “Mao did what Gramsci thought.”

We end in Postmodernism and the ideological collectivist stew of Neo-Marxism.

[jet57]

Here's a follow-up discussion by the same three on the philosophical roots of collectivism. It's heady stuff, but a serious topic, and I hope for good honest responses.

It begins with a statement that pre-modern philosophy held that morality precedes politics and that the political must be bound by the moral. In the mid-1800s, with "Kierkegaard, in the 1840s and Marx 1840s 1850s 1860s and then Nietzsche is a hollowing out and a setting aside of morality for political purposes."

The blurb:

Let's remember that these people are critics of modern progressivism and what has been labeled identity politics: that being another form of civil rights. These same people ran a hoax by writing unresearched academic papers and sending them to 20 universities.

Power is formed in groups, like the American Revolution, the American Labor Movement and our Civil Rights movement. No different than religious groups and political groups of either stripe, all formed around an agenda. "Collectivism" at its best in America in my view, though NOT centered around socialism that is the definition of collectivism. American "collectivism" has nothing to do social ownership. The only dark is the unknown of change and the coming generations. It is the measurement of values that concerns people today.

[Mister D]

wut

[jet57]

wut

That's funny. You must have me on "follow". I know that you have difficulty with teh English language; I'm sorry for your handicap, but I'm not going to repeat it.

[Chris]

Let's remember that these people are critics of modern progressivism and what has been labeled identity politics: that being another form of civil rights. These same people ran a hoax by writing unresearched academic papers and sending them to 20 universities.

Power is formed in groups, like the American Revolution, the American Labor Movement and our Civil Rights movement. No different than religious groups and political groups of either stripe, all formed around an agenda. "Collectivism" at its best in America in my view, though NOT centered around socialism that is the definition of collectivism. American "collectivism" has nothing to do social ownership. The only dark is the unknown of change and the coming generations. It is the measurement of values that concerns people today.

They are presenting the philosophical roots of collectivism, not Progressivism.

Identity politics is not civil rights.

For the rest, yea, wut?

[Chris]

So back to the topic, Hicks cites Kierkegaard anguishing over the story of God commanding Abraham to slay Isaak as the point at which morality is subverted to politics. Kierkegaard reasons that following God's command is immoral therefore there is a higher authority.