[MD] Babylonian intellectuals

[david buchanan]

DT said:
... Where they [Pirsig and Goldberg] diverge radically is on the consequences of this "shift from social domination of intellect to intellectual domination of society" under Wilson, Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. Because believe it or not they were all trying to do very similar things.

dmb says:

It would be more appropriate to compare FDR to Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini. Wilson was President a generation earlier than all these other leaders, during WWI. As Pirsig's analysis goes, he is contrasting FDR's socialism with Hitler's fascism. Within American politics, the people who hated FDR's New Deal policies called his a "Commie" and traitor to his class, the Aristocracy. This is what Pirsig means when he's talking about socialism. That's the historical example of what an intellectually guided society would actually look like in our political culture, which is less intense and dramatic than in Europe. And this is not just some theoretical political spectrum. I mean, the Americans who hated and condemned FDR were also very likely to be sympathetic toward European fascism. You'd find portraits of Mussolini in people's homes and there was a very popular radio preacher who told millions every week what great guy Hitler is and how that radical lefty FDR had to be stopped. This stuff has been swept under the rug to some extent - not the sort of thing you learn about in high school history texts but the historical record is there if you care to look. And if you do look, it's pretty easy to see a continuity from then until now, with the same very same arguments and attitudes. You'd be amazed at how a Klansman from the 1920's sounds just like a Militia member or a neo-Nazi of today. What George Wallace was saying to frighten white voters in the 1960s is very much what FOX is saying to frighten while voters right now. Things have hardly changed at all. In fact, just think about what kind of answers you'd get if you asked a large sample of ditto-heads and Fox fan how they feel about FDR. I don't even have to tell you what kind of answers you'd get, right? If we're living in the same reality, you're thinking very few would have nice things to say and most would express themselves using words like "socialism" and "communism" in a very unflattering way.



DT said:

His first problem is equating capitalism, an economic theory and practice, with socialism which is an all encompassing political theory, a part of which is its economic theory.


dmb says:

I think I know what you mean but it's important to understand that socialism comes in many shapes and forms but there is one thing they all have in common; an opposition to unfettered capitalism. Socialism is, in essence, a critical stance toward pure free markets. Within the context of U.S. politics, that opposition is predicated on the belief that unregulated capitalism produces misery and injustice, that it is not consistent with democratic rights and principles. This is democratic socialism and this is what socialism means in Western World. I think it's pretty clear that the MOQ wants to endorse intellectually guided societies along this lines. I mean, it would be unfair and unreasonable to suggest that Pirsig's intellectually guided society would be the nightmare version imagined by right-wingers, who equate it with a Communist Dictatorship like Stalin's or something like that, as if taxation led directly to the Gulag. 

DT said:

The pragmatic PROOF that this is true, is that capitalism has, does, and continues to work with varying degrees of success under all types of political systems from dictatorships to democracies.


dmb says:

That just goes to show that capitalism and democracy are not the same thing. Most South American dictatorships since WWII, for example, have been very friendly to capitalism.


DT said:
But while it is true that centrally planned socialist or fascist economics kill dynamic potential; much more importantly RMP's evaluation completely glosses over the fact that they both include political theories that justify the extremely dynamic practice of intimidating, imprisoning, or killing anyone who does or might disagree with any of those theories or practices. Or who are deemed to have little value to society. All this based on the best possible "science" of course.

dmb says:
 You've lumped socialism and fascism together to criticize Pirsig's analysis but in that analysis socialism and fascism are opposed terms. According to the meaning of the term as Pirsig describes it and uses it, "socialism" would definitely be opposed to killing anyone who disagrees. According to the meaning of the phrase as Pirsig uses it, an "intellectually guided society" doesn't not imprison or intimidate anyone for dissenting. In fact, the main idea of an intellectually guided society is to protect freedom of speech, freedom of expression, religion, association and the like. I mean, you are equating socialism with the very worst things, things that it opposes. 



DT said:

Both fascism and socialism are based on the crudest form of pragmatism. The ends justify the means. When I get in power I will define the ends and use any means available to me to get to them. Even if along the way they turn out not to be so good. If you don't like that I will get one of my boys to show you the light. Often by piercing a 9mm hole through your head and your wife's head, and your kids head, though not necessarily in that order.


dmb says:

Right. Socialism is where they shoot your whole family in the head. That's what Pirsig means by intellectual guidance. Yea, Gulags and genocide and eugenics. That's what the MOQ is all about. Gee, that's such an insightful and informative conclusion. It really must be taken with the utmost seriousness. You're obviously quite sincere in trying to unlock Pirsig "real" intentions. Unfortunately for you, however, the record shows a lack of ideological compliance so I'm afraid you and your family will have to go. 

We'll send you a bill for the bullets, by the way.



DT said:
I believe that one of the attractions to you [DMB] in Pirsig's work is that his liberal biases syncs with yours.


dmb says:

Well, I agree with his analysis and "liberal" does more or less describe my view but to say we're both biased in the same direction is to say we're both prejudiced and unfair. How so? As a matter of fact, I learned about conservatism from conservatives at a conservative college, where I studied intellectual history. I worked in talk radio, as the producer of a conservative talk show. I grew up in the church. It's not like I learned about conservatism from its enemies, which is where you seem to have learned about liberalism. As with your equation of socialism and bullets through the head, it seems to me that you are being wildly unfair and hyperbolic and generally distorting Pirsig analysis beyond all recognition. 

If you want to know why there's been so much diversity and disagreement over the social/intellectual levels and their relationship, just think about the simple fact that you have equated the very two camps that Pirsig uses as oppositional points in his analysis; socialism and fascism. If we're going to have a reasonable discussion about politics, the meaning of these central terms has to be consistent. If you use the terms to mean the opposite of what it means in the quotes in question, then there's no way the conversation is ever going to go anywhere because it'll always be confused and confounded by contradictory meanings and concepts. It is almost literally a case where the support for human rights is taken as a road to genocide. Nobody's talking about central planning of the economy or bullets in the heads of those who are against it. That's a ridiculous paranoid fantasy and it's outrageously insulting to pretend any version of the MOQ is in favor of such a thing.

C'mon, Dave. Be serious. That's bullshit and you know it. 





 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4