the neoliberal vision of the future

[ViolentPanda]

Action Francaise was the group I immediately thought of when I saw that cartoon. And they were monarchists iirc?

At certain (probably the majority of) phases of their history, plus occasional flirtations with the republican right too. Very much conservative (with all that implied in France) nationalists who were uncomfortable with the 3rd republic.

 

[ViolentPanda]

How many of these few thousand brave pioneers have signed up so far?

Dozens, I'm sure!

 

[ViolentPanda]

How does this mean marxism breaks down?

It doesn't. All it means is that Onar doesn't properly understand Fordism or Marxism, but believes that he does.

 

[butchersapron]

At certain (probably the majority of) phases of their history, plus occasional flirtations with the republican right too. Very much conservative (with all that implied in France) nationalists who were uncomfortable with the 3rd republic.

At that will be the circular sleight of hand he uses to get out it - they're socialists because they're far right, because they were fascists or authoritarians - when he was clearly suggesting it was put out by a/the Socialist Party. Shabby dishonest and pretty disgusting.

 

[nino_savatte]

Action Francaise was the group I immediately thought of when I saw that cartoon. And they were monarchists iirc?

Yes, they were and they are the descendants of the earlier Boulangist movement.

 

[DotCommunist]

Didn't Mr. Mieville make a similar point about the various "free" community ideas floating round (some would-be literally)?

Floating Utopias: The degraded imagination of the libertarian seasteaders

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3328/floating_utopias/

 

[ViolentPanda]

Here we go with the übermensch-better-than-thou stuff again. You altruists are truly demi-gods aren't you? Sooo much smarter, better and nicer than us mere humans.

He hasn't implied that he's better, nicer or smarter than you, he in fact stated that you're not stupid.

Perhaps the word "oddball" smarts? I'd have thought that your ilk, with your assumptions of superiority ("Who is John Galt?". Well, you were!), would wear it as a badge of pride awarded by the untermenschen?

 

[Blagsta]

That's him?

You mean he isn't an 18-year-old.?

Wow.

Clearly a virgin though.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You're just shadow boxing here. A bit wrapped up in your own discourse?

He'd have to be well "stitched in" (as Foucoff would put it) to his discourse for words to take on such jarringly different meanings to their "real-world" counterparts.

 

[Random]

btw I missed it, but did Onar set up a fake account claiming that it was one of his many friends from libertarian land?

 

[ViolentPanda]

At that will be the circular sleight of hand he uses to get out it - they're socialists because they're far right, because they were fascists or authoritarians - when he was clearly suggesting it was put out by a/the Socialist Party. Shabby dishonest and pretty disgusting.

I expect nothing less from someone who characterises any opposition to his ideology as "fascist".

 

[onarchy]

As I've just shown, your understanding of altruism is faulty, which renders what you have to say here as so much pompous foolishness.

Really? My understanding of altruism is faulty, is it? Now let's consider two fairly recent historical people: John D Rockefeller and Mother Teresa. According to the altruist morality of most people Mother Teresa was a hero, a saint, a true altruist, whereas Rockefeller is perhaps the the very stereotype of a selfish villain, a "robber baron," a monopolist, an exploiter. It is no question that Rockefeller is far away from being an altruist.

Therefore Teresa must have done a lot of good for other people while Rockefeller has done a lot of really bad stuff, right? Weeeeell, actually Teresa didn't do all that much good for other people. In fact, she deliberately provided inadequate pre-industrial healthcare to the poor because she didn't believe in modern medicine. Rockefeller on the other hand was instrumental in bringing down the price of Kerosene by 95%. He practically invented the oil industry (and many modern business techniques that are still in use all over the world). He has contributed to bringing light to millions of people and he has done more to combat poverty than most people who have ever existed on the earth. If his ACTIONS (i.e. what he actually DID for others) were the criterion of altruism then he should be a hero, whereas Teresa shouldn't be mentioned in the top 100.

Clearly then what good things you DO for other people means ZERO to an altruist. The reason that Rockefeller is considered a villain in the altruist morality is because he PROFITED from his good deeds. And Teresa is considered the ultimate altruistic hero because she SUFFERED and was miserable and depressed most of her life.

Now, oh heavenly God-Father, can you explain to me -- a mere earthly child -- what part of altruism I have not understood properly?

Altruism is merely a regard for others, unselfishness, if you wish to encapsulate the concept in a word.

Are you saying that it is impossible to have regards for others and at the same time be selfish?

 

[Blagsta]

You fucking what?!?
Why do you have such unhinged definitions for common concepts?

Because its the only way he and his kind can justify their vile view of the world.

 

[ViolentPanda]

btw I missed it, but did Onar set up a fake account claiming that it was one of his many friends from libertarian land?

Yes, bearing the sobriquet "John Galt".

 

[DotCommunist]

btw I missed it, but did Onar set up a fake account claiming that it was one of his many friends from libertarian land?

John Galt was with us for such a short time.

 

[Blagsta]

It doesn't. All it means is that Onar doesn't properly understand Fordism or Marxism, but believes that he does.

It was camouflage who wrote that.

 

[onarchy]

He hasn't implied that he's better, nicer or smarter than you, he in fact stated that you're not stupid.

He said I was a hobbyist, implying that he is the professional who knows all the answers and I am a mere apprentice.

 

[Random]

He said I was a hobbyist, implying that he is the professional who knows all the answers and I am a mere apprentice.

You certainly are a hobbyist. That doesn't imply anything about me, however.

 

[Random]

Yes, bearing the sobriquet "John Galt".

Embarrassing!

 

[onarchy]

Yes, bearing the sobriquet "John Galt".

"John Galt" was not me, but a friend of mine who followed the discussion and was appalled by the level of degeneration. I'm sure you can ask some moderator to check the veracity of this. But I do find it interesting that you would assume -- WITH NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER -- that it was me.

 

[Kizmet]

You're not reading very carefully if you think that. Most people are responding directly to what he's saying.

That's why there are pictures of the guy on the thread.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Really? My understanding of altruism is faulty, is it? Now let's consider two fairly recent historical people: John D Rockefeller and Mother Teresa. According to the altruist morality of most people Mother Teresa was a hero, a saint, a true altruist, whereas Rockefeller is perhaps the the very stereotype of a selfish villain, a "robber baron," a monopolist, an exploiter. It is no question that Rockefeller is far away from being an altruist.

I'm not interested in your interpretations of "the altruist morality of most people", I'm interested in the irrefragible facts (prizes for telling me where that literary quote comes from, everyone!). That is, I'm not interested in your characterisations and sophistry, I'm interested in the kernel of truth, if such a kernel exists.

Therefore Teresa must have done a lot of good for other people while Rockefeller has done a lot of really bad stuff, right? Weeeeell, actually Teresa didn't do all that much good for other people. In fact, she deliberately provided inadequate pre-industrial healthcare to the poor because she didn't believe in modern medicine. Rockefeller on the other hand was instrumental in bringing down the price of Kerosene by 95%. He practically invented the oil industry (and many modern business techniques that are still in use all over the world). He has contributed to bringing light to millions of people and he has done more to combat poverty than most people who have ever existed on the earth. If his ACTIONS (i.e. what he actually DID for others) were the criterion of altruism then he should be a hero, whereas Teresa shouldn't be mentioned in the top 100.

As we're both aware, your peroration is just so much hot air, blah-de-blah that attempts to fill the gaps where substantive fact should reside.

Clearly then what good things you DO for other people means ZERO to an altruist. The reason that Rockefeller is considered a villain in the altruist morality is because he PROFITED from his good deeds. And Teresa is considered the ultimate altruistic hero because she SUFFERED and was miserable and depressed most of her life.

Now, oh heavenly God-Father, can you explain to me -- a mere earthly child -- what part of altruism I have not understood properly?

Don't characterise me as a religious, there's a good lad. I'm not the one who's assembled himself a belief system based on a fiction book.

Are you saying that it is impossible to have regards for others and at the same time be selfish?

No. If you read my post you're well aware of your own disingeneousness here, because you'll be aware I said nothing of the sort.

That sort of trick might work with the sort of vapid malcontent who interpollates with a Galtian identity, but it doesn't generally work against anyone remotely rational.

 

[DotCommunist]

"John Galt" was not me, but a friend of mine who followed the discussion and was appalled by the level of degeneration. I'm sure you can ask some moderator to check the veracity of this. But I do find it interesting that you would assume -- WITH NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER -- that it was me.

I wasn't pissed in the UK sense. Not even pissed in the US sense. Only alerted to this thread by a sockpuppet reporting a post. I didn't want to be sitting watching Milliput curing so I ventured into P&P for a little cross-cultural exchange.

.

 

[onarchy]

You fucking what?!?
Why do you have such unhinged definitions for common concepts?

Explain to me why Rockefeller, who reduced the price of Kerosene by 95% and thereby provided cheap energy and light to millions of people, is considered an immoral person while Mother Teresa, who did very little good for anyone, is considered an altruist hero.

 

[ViolentPanda]

"John Galt" was not me, but a friend of mine who followed the discussion and was appalled by the level of degeneration. I'm sure you can ask some moderator to check the veracity of this. But I do find it interesting that you would assume -- WITH NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER -- that it was me.

In which case why did a moderator refer to Galt as your "sock-puppet". I suspect that this wouldn't have been done without checking certain originator details.

BTW, Although your ilk are quite pompous and fond of bombast, you do have unique writing styles. Odd then that yours and Galt's are similar, or is that merely because you suckled from the same sagging Randian tit?

 

[stethoscope]

You're putting me off my cuppa, VP!

 

[Random]

Explain to me why Rockefeller, who reduced the price of Kerosene by 95% and thereby provided cheap energy and light to millions of people, is considered an immoral person while Mother Teresa, who did very little good for anyone, is considered an altruist hero.

Do you think that people think highly of Mother T, while at the same time knowing that she did very little good? Now I've not idea of whether she did any good or not, but I'd say that any high opinion of Mother T is because of a popular belief that she helped people.

 

[ViolentPanda]

He said I was a hobbyist, implying that he is the professional who knows all the answers and I am a mere apprentice.

Only if one is paranoid. Ordinarily one would take that to mean that your politics are your hobby, that you actually "work for a living" in the real world, rather than being a full-time ideologue (in which case the tag "oddball" is certainly apposite, as it is for any full-time politically-involved person, of whatever ilk).

Your victim complex is getting quite tedious.

 

[onarchy]

.

Hm, I guess you would consider this evidence. It didn't occur to me that a moderator would stoop so low as to either LIE or just without a shred of evidence ASSUME that I and John Galt were the same person. In my worldview moderator means someone who actually moderates, not someone who actively anti-moderates. It reminds me a little bit about policemen in banana republics who are the worst criminals.

 

[Random]

Hm, I guess you would consider this evidence. It didn't occur to me that a moderator would stoop so low as to either LIE or just without a shred of evidence ASSUME that I and John Galt were the same person. In my worldview moderator means someone who actually moderates, not someone who actively anti-moderates. It reminds me a little bit about policemen in banana republics who are the worst criminals.

Or maybe it's you that's the liar? Put yourself in our shoes, what would you think?