What are your thoughts re Hegelian Dialectic & CRT

[HondurasKeiser]

Back to the topic at hand, the roots of American Liberalism, she is attempting to sketch out a foundation separate from European Liberalism, and I see some truth in the general concept. One notable difference is the lack of the doctrine of class struggle. The Puritans saw social action as creating a space for harmony of classes, not thy dissolution of economic class, nor was struggle between the classes a necessary engine for social progress. They also were interested in a society of possibility for the lowest and had little interest in recreating medieval manors and Lords that men like Jefferson favored to the south.

I see roots of this broad based social vision in programs like progressive tax rates, social security and Medicare. They were designed from the beginning to benefit all classes without punitive action against any. I would if this baseline value prevented the violent forms of Marxism and class struggle from taking root.

I think this is correct and pace Ken, backed up by quite a bit of scholarship. I have been fascinated by the Puritans and their "long tail" in American History for quite some time and when you put this question to me it sent me down a rabbit hole and I found myself digging up old essays and posts that I had long forgotten.

I do have one quibble with Ms. Robinson's (and your?) thesis: That "Puritans are the source of American Liberalism and that American Liberalism is categorically different from European or French Liberalism". This is true only if by 'American Liberalism' we mean something like the American Whig/Progressive/Left tradition contrasted with the American Agrarian/Jefferson-Jackson/Conservative tradition. That the Puritans and to a lesser extent the Quakers are in large part, but not wholly constitutive of, the American Left tradition is, I think undeniable. I think the second half of the thesis though is faulty and seeks to make a distinction and a difference that simply doesn't exist. That is to say Americans, Left and Right, Puritan/Quaker and Cavalier/Redneck, Progressive and Conservative; are in fact Liberals. Liberalism is not simply a desire for more government aid to the needy or the creation of mass education; that's only half the equation, the Left half. It is at root, the belief and instantiation in law of Freedom of the Individual from all prior, unchosen constraint - it spans the Right-Left divide in America and encompasses the descendants of nearly all early colonizers, not just the Puritans. We see truly Liberal themes in the writings of both the early Puritans and of the Virginian Statesmen that, mostly, wrote the Constitution. Much as Ms. Robinson may want to separate our American Liberal tradition from that of the Continent, I don't think it stands up to scrutiny and it crumbles in the face of actual political-philosophical history.

Nevertheless, I loved the talks she gave and am very thankful you sent me on that diversion. Here are some of the threads I pulled on these past 2 weeks (I took a long break for Thanksgiving):

https://hesiodscorner.wordpress.com/201 ... ressivism/

https://www.realclearpublicaffairs.com/ ... 79946.html

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news ... he-yankees

https://harpers.org/archive/2022/08/mar ... iberalism/

https://elizabethjpeterson.com/2021/05/ ... 20affairs.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1461569

https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/27/b ... ions-seed/ (Read this first and then the Reddit discussion second)

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/com ... late_star/

https://www.city-journal.org/article/ap ... dium=email

https://www.aaronrenn.com/p/tyler-cowen ... dium=email

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1712&start=20

[Falco Knotwise]

I am not posting this as an explicit endorsement of Falco's thesis (though again, I think he's on to something). Nevertheless, this came across my transom this morning and it obviously dovetails with his argument:

In the Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek describes the illiberal nature of totalitarian regimes using the Soviet Union and the Third Reich as iconic examples. When the book was written in the mid-1940s these regimes were (and continue to this day to be) considered antithetical to one another on account of where they fell on the political spectrum. Hayek, however, explains that the regimes were much more alike than they were different. What they had in common, and what characterized them more profoundly, was that they were collectivist regimes. The common and most defining feature of collectivist systems according to Hayek is the “deliberate organization of the labors of society for a definite social goal.” What distinguishes different collectivist regimes is the “nature of the goal to which they want to direct the efforts of society.” That collectivist systems seek to organize the “labors of society” towards a singular goal leads them to an “all-overriding desire to give the group the maximum of power to achieve these ends.” This implies a moral or ethical system that places the one goal above all other competing, and thereby subordinate, goals. As a result, the “ends justify the means” “becomes necessarily the supreme rule” to reach the societal goal.

As a result, Communism and National Socialism were not antithetical to each other. They were, rather, the same system albeit with different “definite goals.” The true antithesis to both these systems, and to collectivist systems more broadly for Hayek, is liberalism. To Hayek, liberalism is defined by an inclination towards the individual – and indeed all individuals – relative to the collective, and the many freedoms and negative rights this implies. These rights and freedoms (rights and freedoms that we expect and are accustomed to in the Anglosphere) include: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of movement, and freedom from arbitrary imprisonment. The latter is particularly important since it harkens to another critical characteristic of liberalism: the rule of law. Hayek explains that, while often misunderstood and misconstrued, the rule of law is simply the principle that the law applies to all individuals equally, that all individuals are equal before the law, and, as importantly, that laws also apply to the state. It is typically easier to understand the liberal rule of law not through its definition, but through its ideal manifestation. Under the rule of law, individuals know how the state will act in any circumstance, and that the state will act in the same way towards all individuals. If an individual breaks a law, they know what the consequences will be. As important, the individual knows what the state will not do, e.g. arbitrarily violate their fundamental freedoms.

Yes, we can see they were both attempts to bring about a Worker’s Paradise on earth. They differed on how that can be done.

Eric Voegelin understood the conflict between them this way:

“Tired of waiting for heaven — that is, for a condition where the transcendent would no more have to compromise with the immanent — these men and women [Marxists and Fascists] tried to render it here on earth. Because this cannot be done, they could not agree on how to do it; because they could not agree on how to do it — and yet agreed that it needed to be done — they tore one another to shreds.”

[Falco Knotwise]

Addendum: I should add that the “Marxists and Fascists” in brackets was my own insertion there. I think Voegelin was talking about utopian gnostic mass movements in general, which in his mind included conflicts such as the Puritan Revolution as well.

[temporal1]

Part One / Who Really Was Karl Marx? (The Early Life of Marx) - Thomas Sowell / -11min


Part Two / The Hidden Truth About Karl Marx / 8min

Thomas Sowell is an American economist and political commentator.
He taught economics at Cornell University, the University of California, Los Angeles,
and since 1980 at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he is currently a Senior Fellow.

This channel helps to promote his teachings and principles of economics and philosophy.

i prefer TS’s personal narration, but this is ok.

[temporal1]

Hey, Falco,
Today, on Page 62, “Major attack on Israel by Hamas,” the post with Ben Shapiro/Elise Stefanik,” causes me to wonder if a ripple effect of the Hamas terrorist attack might lead to “cooling down” of normalization+proliferation of lib ideology, esp in Ivy League schools and big state universities?? (The ideology does NOT stay in those institutions.)

Dare we hope?
P.62: viewtopic.php?t=6141&start=610

“Everything changes everything.” “The butterfly effect.”

God’s design.

[Josh]

Hey, Falco,
Today, on Page 62, “Major attack on Israel by Hamas,” the post with Ben Shapiro/Elise Stefanik,” causes me to wonder if a ripple effect of the Hamas terrorist attack might lead to “cooling down” of normalization+proliferation of lib ideology, esp in Ivy League schools and big state universities?? (The ideology does NOT stay in those institutions.)

Dare we hope?
P.62: viewtopic.php?t=6141&start=610

“Everything changes everything.” “The butterfly effect.”

God’s design.

No. Why would it? University students aren’t “pro Hamas”, and if you think that, you need to escape your Fox News bubble. They, instead, have legitimate grievances about the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

It is also a mistake to just think this is “lib ideology”. As we can see, there is no unified position on what “lib ideology” is for the conflict. (Although conservative ideology is quite united on the topic.)

[Ken]

Hey, Falco,
Today, on Page 62, “Major attack on Israel by Hamas,” the post with Ben Shapiro/Elise Stefanik,” causes me to wonder if a ripple effect of the Hamas terrorist attack might lead to “cooling down” of normalization+proliferation of lib ideology, esp in Ivy League schools and big state universities?? (The ideology does NOT stay in those institutions.)

Dare we hope?
P.62: viewtopic.php?t=6141&start=610

“Everything changes everything.” “The butterfly effect.”

God’s design.

No. Why would it? University students aren’t “pro Hamas”, and if you think that, you need to escape your Fox News bubble. They, instead, have legitimate grievances about the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

It is also a mistake to just think this is “lib ideology”. As we can see, there is no unified position on what “lib ideology” is for the conflict. (Although conservative ideology is quite united on the topic.)

What it is is that universities have ALWAYS had a diverse collection of students and there are ALWAYS a minority of students who experiment with various radical ideologies across the spectrum. That has always been the case and always will be. Today it's Palestine. Last decade it was "Occupy Wall Street" and Bernie Sanders "Democratic Socialist" crowd.

Back when I was in college in the 1980s it was the Divestment from South Africa movement and also the young Republican movement. At my campus we had divestment from South Africa protestors occupying buildings and clashing with right-wing young Republicans wearing blue blazers and red ties.

In the 1970s is was nuclear freeze and anti nuke protesters.

In the 1960s it was all the Vietnam war protests culminating in lots of violence and Kent State.

Are TODAY's protests on college campuses even slightly different from any of those previous protest movements? No, they are absolutely not, except that there seems to be more antisemitism mixed into some of today's protests that needs to be called out. But there is an equal amount of anti-Muslim sentiment mixed into protests on the other side, including even coming from Congress.

None of this is evens slightly new and the moral panic over college students and young people is both perpetual and unseemly

[temporal1]

No. Why would it? University students aren’t “pro Hamas”, and if you think that, you need to escape your Fox News bubble.
They, instead, have legitimate grievances about the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

It is also a mistake to just think this is “lib ideology”. As we can see, there is no unified position on what “lib ideology” is for the conflict. (Although conservative ideology is quite united on the topic.)

i don’t believe this is deserving of response. due to my foolishness, here i go.

1) i’ve been listening to Ben Shapiro on this, he’s Jewish, and not ambivalent.
he’s not thinking in plaid or paisley.

2) no matter how often accused, i do not follow Fox, and never have. For me, Fox and NYT are more alike than not. i avoid both, do not totally ignore either. Unlike many, for me, “Fox” is not a trigger word. i pray it never is.

3) Ben S has never said Palestinians have no grievances, his beef is specifically with Hamas (and their connections to Iran).
No plaid or paisley.

4) Whatever source, there seems to be no confusion about those billionaire donors who want clarity on antisemitism in university leadership and policy. i have no quarrel with that.

Ben S used some incidents in Skokie, IL, as examples of “how free speech should work” - which i found highly relevant.
Skokie is a largely Jewish Chicago suburb which has been visited by strongly antisemite groups now+then.
They are protected under free speech laws, which Ben S. supports. i find this admirable. i’ve been impressed with Skokie’s response now+then over years. i’m sure it’s not easy for them, but they tolerate free speech and move on. (as it appears from where i sit.)

i doubt you viewed the videos. no problem.

i believe it’s healthy+desirable to separate authentic extremists/terrorists from others.
Before Oct 7, i thought it was basic, and commonly agreed.

i don’t believe Ben S is always correct, is a special genius, or other.
Understandably, he’s not ambiguous on this. i appreciate his views.

In my questions to Falco, i’m wondering about his opinion on what’s now happening wrt different points he’s discussed in this thread.
Not confned to Israel-Hamas. (Hegelian Dialectic & CRT)

[Falco Knotwise]

Hey, Falco,
Today, on Page 62, “Major attack on Israel by Hamas,” the post with Ben Shapiro/Elise Stefanik,” causes me to wonder if a ripple effect of the Hamas terrorist attack might lead to “cooling down” of normalization+proliferation of lib ideology, esp in Ivy League schools and big state universities?? (The ideology does NOT stay in those institutions.)

Dare we hope?
P.62: viewtopic.php?t=6141&start=610

“Everything changes everything.” “The butterfly effect.”

God’s design.

If you’re referring to social justice ideologies, I’d say no such luck, temp. They won’t stop until it becomes too unprofitable. Stupidity is never convinced by argument.

[Josh]

1) i’ve been listening to Ben Shapiro on this, he’s Jewish, and not ambivalent.
he’s not thinking in plaid or paisley.

I would consider Ben Shapiro to be a rather biased source about this, in particular since he has been loudly bleating that the U.S. needs to immediately get involved in this conflict (that does not involve us). I don't think the U.S. should go and get involved in more wars. Israel is more than capable of handling this conflict on their own, and already receives a massive amount of assistance from the U.S. in the form of money, foreign aid, and weapons.

2) no matter how often accused, i do not follow Fox, and never have. For me, Fox and NYT are more alike than not. i avoid both, do not totally ignore either. Unlike many, for me, “Fox” is not a trigger word. i pray it never is.

I used "Fox News" as a term of art, but if you'd like, I'll extend it to "the Daily Wire universe", which is a source of notoriously biased news, and in particular it tends to take a hawkish, pro-war stance which I feel is both harmful and specifically goes against the teachings of Jesus. As Christians, we should speak out against biased sources of news that seek to promote war instead of find peaceful resolutions of conflict.

3) Ben S has never said Palestinians have no grievances, his beef is specifically with Hamas (and their connections to Iran).
No plaid or paisley.

I don't think anyone is in favour of Hamas. Students who are protesting are not pro-Hamas. They are pro-Palestinian. That's a big difference. Hamas is already designated in America as a terrorist organisation and as enemy of the U.S. Hamas is not operating inside the U.S.

4) Whatever source, there seems to be no confusion about those billionaire donors who want clarity on antisemitism in university leadership and policy. i have no quarrel with that.

I disagree with this. The topic of "antisemitism" has been muddled with "anyone who doesn't support Netanyahu's current agenda of a one-state solution with Palestinians relegated to an apartheid status". There are many Israelis who actually don't agree with this. Anti-semitism is a real problem, and I think it's completely wrong to call a mainstream political position (a two-state solution or a one-state solution with genuine equal right for Palestinians) "anti-semitic".

Ben S used some incidents in Skokie, IL, as examples of “how free speech should work” - which i found highly relevant.
Skokie is a largely Jewish Chicago suburb which has been visited by strongly antisemite groups now+then.
They are protected under free speech laws, which Ben S. supports. i find this admirable. i’ve been impressed with Skokie’s response now+then over years. i’m sure it’s not easy for them, but they tolerate free speech and move on. (as it appears from where i sit.)

I have not seen that Ben Shapiro supports free speech laws. He seems to support speech that he likes, but doesn't support speech that he doesn't like. The right wing is being hypocritical and disingenuous in their current calls to silence people who protest on behalf of Palestine.

i doubt you viewed the videos. no problem.

Yes, I avoid watching videos of biased news. However, it is almost trivial to quickly get summaries of what a position is. Then I can read in a couple of minutes what was said, instead of wasting my time watching hours of videos designed to stir up strife and outrage.

i believe it’s healthy+desirable to separate authentic extremists/terrorists from others.
Before Oct 7, i thought it was basic, and commonly agreed.

I think it is too and I think this is an area where Shapiro (and much of the rest of the right wing) has completely failed. It is particularly egregious after the right wing complaining about "cancel culture" when they in turn are calling for the effective cancellation of people who disagree with their position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.