RE: Noteworthy News
September 16, 2024 at 6:40 pm
(This post was last modified: September 16, 2024 at 6:46 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(September 16, 2024 at 2:55 pm)Ivan Denisovich Wrote:(September 16, 2024 at 2:44 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Yeah, it took a while for me to come to my senses. As a political philosophy, it actually shares the same major flaw as Marxism/Leninism -- it forgets the undying power of human greed to twist even the most noble of intentions.
You did and many don't so that's a success. Also I wouldn't ascribe noble intentions to libertarianism or Marxism-Leninism. In fact it's something that baffles me. I mean Marx did not write all that much about what communism will look like so there isn't much basis to ascribe nobility to it (I for one don't deem disappearance of state to be good) and yet people do so quite often, at least in my experience. In my view it's just some made up crap with platitudes thrown in (from everyone according to ability, to everyone according to his need) that was as possible to achieve as all people being strong like Hercules, wise like Socrates and brave like Leonidas. And basis for Soviet state religion of course which also don't add anything to it's supposed nobility.
When I mentioned "nobility", I was talking about how the adherents believed that what they adhered to would actually produce a better world for all. They thought that assigning production to the people, or trusting magnates to do the right thing following the money, would in the end in both cases result in a better society for all.
That's clearly not the case in either instance because both systems ignore the basic urge of greed.
Of course, after both systems are shown flawed, apologists show up to explain why this or that experiment (Soviet Union, Gilded Age in America) went wrong, not because the ideology was wrong, but "the people didn't implement it right".
This ignores the fact that in both cases, greed -- for power or money or control -- is for better or worse an essential human quality.