Stupid, Naive?
naive: marked by unaffected simplicity, showing lack of informed judgment; esp. credulous
This is different from slow of mind or dumb, lacking in power to absorb ideas or unthinking, lacking intelligence or reason. But I surely suppose one could be both and I am thinking of a number of conversations I have had recently, a comment or two to my last post (why do we kill each other) and some of the talking head chat this morning.
"Most of the day was dedicated to speeches from politicians and Minutemen leaders and celebrating large donations the Minutemen group has been recieving." From the paper. Or Republicans sending in bills to ban gay marriage, flag burning, etc.. The pudits knowingly grimace and talk of political calculations but We The People?Naive? Stupid?
I don't encourage talking politics in my boat ( a policy for self-preservation) but.. conservatives/republicans (is there some esoteric difference? most people seperate the two) have lately been obsessing, totally unprovoked by me, about the failure of their party/ideology to deal with problems. As soon as they get in and start fishing they bring up the national debt, over-spending, the war, immigrants, crowded prisons blah blah. As a fishing guide I am also part psychiatrist so I nod understandingly but inside I am wondering, naive or stupid? Did they really think a little Reaganomics and tough-love cuts in social spending would right the world?
Then there is just hateful. One irate fascist thought we should nuke Saudi Arabia, "turn it into glass!" to get at the oil. Called Hillary the f...ing C word about five times, hated her more viscerally than Jane Fonda even, wished Ted Kennnedy had killed himself that night on Marthas Vineyard. Naive, stupid and hateful.But his anxiety springs from the same well as the anxiety of the guys collecting signatures down at K Mart this morning for an initiative to put away sex offenders, or most of the Islamic world or the old black men polled who couldn't understand the attitude of young blacks. This is the well of meaning, or lack of it in life and the never-quite -knowing if the well is half empty or half full.
posted by troutsky @ 3:41 PM
14 comments
14 Comments:
I would say conservatives who attempt to use government to acheive their ends are naive. Government is not conservative, and though it's probably a bit rash to conclude that any non-libertarian who is "conservative" is a liar, if a self-professed conservative does not espouse libertarian tendencies he is not conservative at all.
It matters precious little whether someone is stupid or naive, at least from an outsider's perspective. Someone with an IQ of say, 80, is going to struggle with most complex issues. Someone who is naive will struggle as well, not from an intrinsic inability to grasp the topic at hand, but due to a shallow mind that cannot understand that one's interpretation could be wrong, or at least too simple.
If I may be so bold, I have a question I would like to ask you. Since you adhere to Marxist doctrine, many people might call you naive. Is it naive to embrace an historically failed idealogy? Is your supposed naivite--for the sake of the argument--more tolerable because it is well intentioned?
Marxists, however poor students they were, have left millions of corpses scattered across the globe; undertaking the foolish task of nuking Saudi Arabia would do the same. What would you say is the difference between the two?
You have identified the essence of the task facing all self espoused Marxists,that of facing up to and explaining our history. Many associate naivete with utopian vision in general.My approach is to argue socialism did not die the disgraced, "failed" death most ascribe to it , but that true socialism has not yet been born.
From a skeptics point of view,which I know you to be , you must read "between the lines" ,as it were,of the dominant narrative and understand what "use value" this idea of eternal failure might serve the powers that be. "There is no alternative" is a theme they wish to drive into the mass conciousness, effectively limiting the space we are "allowed" to explore for political solutions.This is why I and other "anti-capitalists" (not necessarily Marxists per se) take inspiration from the Bolivarian Revolution ,or socialism for the 21st century, as Venezuelans call it.
In other words, I don't see where anyone could confuse the ideology or politics of Stalin through Breshnev with Marxism ("the free development of the individual as the condition for the free development of all"),much less that of Mao or PolPot or any of the other tyrants who ar eusually brought up.This leads to the question, does socialist theory NECESSARILY lead to these kind of villians and societies but I have not yet seen an analysis which provides this type of proof.Please continue to be "so bold" as these are essential questions.
As we have previously discussed, I tend to believe that socialism is neither moral nor tenable. We can focus on the latter attribute for purposes of this simple discussion.
For the sake of the argument, I will accept that true socialism would be a good thing. Thus we have a theory, but still lack the means to implement it.
Scores of people have tried to implement true socialism in various ways. All have fallen short. I am willing to accept that true socialism has not been tried. My question, however, is: how many times must we try to enact an ostensibly wondrous theory before it is discarded as impractical?
If I possess a recipe for orgasmic chocolate chip cookies, but numerous attempts to bake them leave those who partake feeling less than satisfied, at some point we must accept that my recipe was a bad one.
It is my sincere opinion that the recipe of Marx should be cast into the flames.
If I possess a recipe for orgasmic chocolate chip cookies, but numerous attempts to bake them leave those who partake feeling less than satisfied, at some point we must accept that my recipe was a bad one.
A fair point. But, if the baker, instead of following the recipe for chocolate chip cookies, follows a recipe for dog food, and the result tastes like, well, dog food, it is hardly fair to blame the cookie recipe or the one who devised it.
That, I think, is T'sky's point about the irrelevance of the Stalinist (and I'd add Maoist) experience to the question of whether socialism is viable or virtuous. No serious reader (whether approving or not) of Marx would consider the Soviet (or Chinese, North Korean, etc.) experiences to be applications -- even vulgar ones -- of Marx's ideas. (Of course, no serious reader of Marx would take his writings to be a "recipe" at all. But that's another discussion for another day.)
To put it another way: the represssive Stalinist and Maoist regimes commonly label themselves "democratic republics". See, e.g. "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"; "German Democratic Republic". No sensible person would conclude from these and similar examples that democracy and republicanism are failed and murderous ideologies. Rather, a sensible person would conclude that the labels are deceptive. Why, then, should the fact that these same regimes also label themselves "socialist" or "communist" have any bearing on the viability or virtues of socialism or communism?
Or, to put it yet another way: over the last several centuries, millions have been murdered by self-proclaimed "Christians" purporting to act in the name of Jesus. Do the crimes of the Crusaders, the Inquisition, etc. discredit Christianity?
You express well what I stumble so crudely over, cont-op.If we consider the movement for social justice a work in progress rather than a recipe,as something which will require all of our inputs,then the baggage of "historical failure" will not weigh so heavily.Capitalism has been a huge success, in terms od historical development ,but it is time to expand our capabilities beyond the mere production of commodities to the just distribution of them as well.
Or, to put it yet another way: over the last several centuries, millions have been murdered by self-proclaimed "Christians" purporting to act in the name of Jesus. Do the crimes of the Crusaders, the Inquisition, etc. discredit Christianity?
In two thousand years, Christians have made mistakes, but these have been relatively few and far between.
Mao and Stalin perpetuated more crimes against humanity than all of Christendom combined--and in a far shorter period of time I might add.
Secondly, Christianity has produced many working examples. To use just two of the most recent ones, Mother Teresa, and Pope John Paul II showed the good Christianity can do.
I have yet to see the same from Marxists.
In two thousand years, Christians have made mistakes, but these have been relatively few and far between.
Cold comfort to the victims of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Conquests, etc.
Mao and Stalin perpetuated more crimes against humanity than all of Christendom combined--and in a far shorter period of time I might add.
Well, I'm not certain that's true. I suppose it depends how you count.
For example, the tally of Stalin's victims generally includes the enormous number who starved to death as a result of his disastrous agricultural policies.
By the same token, we might credit "christians" with the genocide of indigenous peoples all over the world -- most notably in this hemisphere -- as a result of the conquest of new lands for "christendom" (not just the countless deaths by direct slaughter, but also those caused by the spread of communicable disease, enslavement, and other social conditions imposed by the "christian" conquerers). Or the deaths that have resulted from the Catholic Church's insistance that its followers refrain from taking simple measures to protect themselves from deadly communicable disease.
Still, I'm willing to accept, at least provisionally, that, Stalin and Mao's death toll, on a per annum basis, exceeds "christianity's" by a hefty measure. Again, the question is, what on earth has this to do with Marx or socialism?
My point -- which perhaps got lost in the snark -- was not to attack Christianity, but to point out that, just as you presumably wouldn't accept the Crusaders', the Inquisitors', the Conquistadors' or the Ku Klux Klan's claims to be acting in conformity with the teachings of Christ, neither is there any good reason to accept the Stalinists' and Maoists' claims to be "Marxists".
I can call myself a duck-billed platypus. That doesn't make me an egg-laying, web-footed mammals. And proving that I neither lay eggs nor have webbed feet in no way disproves the existence of duck-billed platypuses (platypods? certainly not "platypi"!).
Secondly, Christianity has produced many working examples. To use just two of the most recent ones, Mother Teresa, and Pope John Paul II showed the good Christianity can do.
I have yet to see the same from Marxists.
Don't get me started on Mother Teresa. I'll just refer you to Christopher Hitchens (of all people), who has done a yoeman's job of setting out the case against her sanctification.
If you really want a modern-day model of christian charity, take a look at the life of the marxist, and Catholic Worker, Dorothy Day.
Well, I'm not certain that's true. I suppose it depends how you count.
Bullocks. Stalin and Mao have been responsible for about fifty million deaths. The Spanish Inquisition resulted in 2000 deaths over 350 years, which makes it so isignificant as to be almost unworthy of note.
The Crusades are another misunderstood topic. The Muslims--who had come quite close to conquering large parts of Europe--were not letting Christian pilgrims visit the Holy Land. Thus, the Pope called together an army to secure the land for the True Believers. This is distinctly different from the commies, who shot people, not for refusing to budge from holy ground, but merely for possibly plotting against the almighty government.
Again, the question is, what on earth has this to do with Marx or socialism?
You cannot, on one hand, exclude Stalin et. al. from their atrocities for being improper Marxists, and, on the other, damn Christians for committing un-Christ-like crimes. You must maintain a consistent rubiric, and either standard vindicates Christians and convicts the Marxists.
If you really want a modern-day model of christian charity, take a look at the life of the marxist, and Catholic Worker, Dorothy Day.
First, since the Catholic Church is opposed to Marxism, Dorothy Day is not a marxist, but actually a distributist, a noble tradition of Catholic thinking started almost a century ago by Hillaire Belloc and advocated by G.K. Chesterton, amongst others.
Second, I find it humorous that your best example of a marxist is not only a Catholic, but not a marxist at all. I'm sure a good marxist will manifest himself eventually, just keep trying.
Lastly,
Or the deaths that have resulted from the Catholic Church's insistance that its followers refrain from taking simple measures to protect themselves from deadly communicable disease.
Huh?
We seem to be talking at cross-purposes, but just once more I'll try to clarify:
Stalin and Mao have been responsible for about fifty million deaths. The Spanish Inquisition resulted in 2000 deaths over 350 years, which makes it so isignificant as to be almost unworthy of note.
Maybe I attribute a little more significance to the Inquisition than you do because my forebears were among its victims, forced out of the land in which they had lived for generations because they would not accept the dictates of the Church. Perhaps they should have emulated the Crusaders and raised an army to secure the land for Non-True Believers.
Anyway, you're still not comparing like with like. Stalin and Mao most certainly did not execute fifty million people. The vast majority of those victims died as a result of disastrous and oppressive policies that Stalin and Mao imposed -- forced collectivization, the Great Leap Forward, etc. I agree that Stalin and Mao shoulder the responsibility for those deaths. How many indigenous people likewise died as a result of the Christian Conquests -- either directly at the hands (swords, guns) of the Conquistadores or indirectly as a result of the social and economic conditions they imposed? 8 million in Hispaniola alone in the two decades following Columbus's arrival. Add in the Aztecs, the Incas, etc., and there can be little doubt that the total surpasses 50 million.
You cannot, on one hand, exclude Stalin et. al. from their atrocities for being improper Marxists, and, on the other, damn Christians for committing un-Christ-like crimes. You must maintain a consistent rubiric, and either standard vindicates Christians and convicts the Marxists.
I'm NOT damning Christians for committing un-Christ-like crimes. I'm pointing out that horrible crimes have been committed by people FALSELY purporting to be following Christ's teachings. I don't believe their false claims. Neither should you believe the false claims of Stalinists and Maoists to be following Marx's teachings. That seems like a pretty consistant standard to me.
My point about Dorothy Day, by the way, was mostly cheeky. I know perfectly well that she renounced Communism and didn't consider herself a Marxist. But she still practiced something far closer to what Marx preached (sic) than Stalin, Mao or their like ever did.
I'm not so concerned with the labels people assume. I'm more interested in the reality of what they do.
Lastly,
Or the deaths that have resulted from the Catholic Church's insistance that its followers refrain from taking simple measures to protect themselves from deadly communicable disease.
Huh?
Condoms. AIDS.
Well discussed ,comrades.I have heard the argument over and over that Marxism leads to vangaurdism which leads necessarily to totalitarianism.I don't find this as "solid" or mathematical as others and so may in fact be naive.I also hear people equate religious belief with intolerance which leads necessarily to repression,violence etc..
I think those of us who question these dominant narratives are by this very fact not naive,and those of us who can make valid points, backed by reason and evidence are not stupid.Personally I don't feel either Marxists or Christians have "left millions of corpses scattered across the globe". Instead it is perverters of these doctrines which have and those who perpetuate these myths pervert the discourse.Like the Dali Lama, Christ was a Marxist, Marx was a Christian and Buddha was both.
Personally I don't feel either Marxists or Christians have "left millions of corpses scattered across the globe". Instead it is perverters of these doctrines which have and those who perpetuate these myths pervert the discourse.
Precisely. And on this note, I should apologize if my comments mistakenly gave the impression that I sought to equate Christianity (the real thing) with Stalinism. That would be simultaneously absurd and atrocious.
I am by no means a religious person. I cringe at the mention of "faith"
and "spirituality". But I still have tremendous respect for people of faith who interpret and act on their faith for the betterment of the world. That's why I was so keen on teaching at a Jesuit university, for example.
All I meant is that the history of the world is replete with people -- especially people backed by the power of a totalitarian state -- doing horrendous things to other people (and to the planet) in the name of God, Justice, Liberty, or some other noble ideal. Those people are all pretty much of a piece to me, and invidious comparisons among their tolls of death and destruction have little value.
My real point is that we mustn't let those people disgrace the noble ideals whose mantles they falsely claim. The post-revolutionary Terror in France doesn't discredit republicanism. The destruction of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki doesn't discredit democracy. The genocide of indiginous peoples doesn't discredit Christianity. And Stalinism doesn't discredit Marxism as a critical theory or communism as a critical practice.
Like the Dali Lama, Christ was a Marxist, Marx was a Christian and Buddha was both.
Yes. (To be very precise and academicist, when I talk about Marxism, I mostly mean a critical theory of capitalism as an historically specific form of social domination. In that sense, neither Christ nor the Buddha could plausibly have been a Marxist. But substitute the word "communist" or "socialist" -- the distinction between which is less important to me -- and I'd definitely agree.)
You didn't imply that at all Op,your position is clear, well presented and unassailable IMO.and appreciated.
To be very precise and academicist, when I talk about Marxism, I mostly mean a critical theory of capitalism as an historically specific form of social domination.
Then color me Marxist. I define a Marxist as one who wishes to abolish private property, as per his manifesto. This I cannot accept as moral.
Post a Comment
<< Home