Indeed, if we go by politics alone, we can’t help but conclude that all is fair and square: one man, one vote. What could be fairer than that? But economics tells a different story; and it’s economics, stupid, that our political system is designed to keep under the radar to the extent it can. And yet,
It is precisely in the economic arena, and this is the height of irony, where the notion of willful co-operation makes more sense than anywhere else and assumes its fullest expression. In particular, only through a thoroughgoing reorganization of our productive activities along, dare I say, Marxian, communist lines would our cooperative, communal spirit (or impulse) attain its greatest potential: a proposition (need I argue?) that is clearly antithetical to the economic system in place. Which is why a liberal democracy, any liberal democracy, for all its niceties such as equal protection under the law or the one-man/one-vote rule, for all its guarantees of our rights and whatever else you may think of, is, at bottom, nothing but ideology, a political arm of the capitalist system which is regarded by all and all alike as sacrosanct. On this, let me assure you, our conservatives and our liberals are in perfect agreement!
Perhaps there is a thoughtful conservative here and there who would be willing to challenge these assumptions and buck the trend, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. That would be un-American; and if there's anything a conservative is about, it’s about America. In any event, I don’t exactly fancy myself another Diogenes, looking for an honest man.
And so I say, let the festivities continue!
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Cindy
I have finished page 3, Roger. I like where that page has ended, very astute point. I will return again to finish tomorrow.
2 - Cindy
Roger,
I think you need to write where people are capable of comprehending what you write.
3 - Dr Dreadful
Or where he can be persuaded not to repel half his potential audience by insulting them before he even starts.
4 - roger nowosielski
I didn't realize I was being so dense, Cindy. You got through page 3, so where is the difficulty now? Anyways, I'll call tomorrow.
5 - roger nowosielski
zing never comments on my stuff anyway. I thought given him a push and shove might do the trick. But there is no reason for you to feel slighted.
6 - Cindy
He wouldn't be insulting anyone who even half understood what he is saying. Alas, I think that isn't possible. Perhaps there is a conspiracy regarding cultural indoctrination!
7 - Cindy
No difficulty or criticism for/by me, Roger. I am speaking to the lack of commentary on an obviously astute article.
8 - Cindy
He necessarily repels his audience because they are blind.
9 - Cindy
They might wish to investigate that point. Instead of expecting to be fed their pablum.
10 - roger nowosielski
I have a different take on this, Cindy, at least different than Dreadful's. The way I see it, none are willing to admit the emperor is naked.
11 - Cindy
Which, in my own experience they are, no matter what the fuck you ask of them. They will not question their own beliefs.
12 - Cindy
None are capable, Roger. You do yourself a disservice in thinking them unwilling. They have never even tried.
13 - roger nowosielski
No, they're not incapable. Denial takes an effort, a conscious effort.
14 - Cindy
Most of my comments were directed to Dr. Dreadful. (Just for clarity.)
15 - Cindy
Roger,
I need to discuss two very important teachers of mine and why I think you are wrong. Call me.
In other words, "denial", as you call it, is only a denial of what someone else believes, and is ordinary. In fact, everything "normal" is ordinary.
If I might say, and you can quote me--"we made it all the fuck up."
16 - roger nowosielski
Planned to call you on Thanksgiving day anyway, rain or shine.
17 - Cindy
When you think about it you realize that we--the normal society are no less a cult than say, Scientology. So, what makes THIS cult (culture) more legitimate than that one? Not much--a legitimating governmental body.
The followers of any cult are necessarily brainwashed into that cult's thinking. No matter how loose the boundaries of that thinking.
Okay, that is my basic argument. Call me tomorrow.
18 - roger nowosielski
Will do.
19 - Dr Dreadful
They will not question their own beliefs.
And what do you think "their" beliefs are?
20 - roger nowosielski
Don't fall for that trap, Cindy, Dreadful is taking things out of context. The correct reference is a set of beliefs implied by the subject article, and if I'm not mistaken, that's what you were referring to. If perchance he happens to disagree that these beliefs are a fair approximation of a typical liberal mindset, he is yet to voice his disagreement.
The onus is on him.
21 - Dr Dreadful
Whether the onus is on him or not, he feels the above exchange illustrates quite neatly why no-one else feels inclined to join the two of you in your echo chamber.
22 - roger nowosielski
Of course, not. You'd rather be beating up on "easy targets" like Arch Conservative or Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor) rather than engage in a conversation in which your own presuppositions stand a chance of being challenged.
And echo chamber or no echo chamber, neither Cindy nor I have given you a cause to feel insulted, so perhaps you ought to get off your high horse.
23 - Zingzing
Roger, speaking of context, perhaps you'd like to think about why I said the phrase you highlight as so egregious. I follow comments more than articles usually, which is how i got here, so that explains why I'm okay not being an ob/gyn on that unnecessary pap thread (how many ob/gyns are on that thread?), so maybe I spelled it out better during that multi-thread conversation elsewhere, but there's a reason behind it. It's not just blindly battering the opposition, and I'd love to see if you even have a clue. (and if you seriously want to bash someone for taking things out of context as you just did doc, I suggest you do it under another, more fanciful name, because you've sullied the one you're using now with that shitstick.)
Cindy--did you notice how Roger used his supposed belief that I was female (which he's known not to be true for years, but he keeps on bringing up periodically) as a not-so-veiled insult? Every time I comment on women's issues and he's around, he does this kind of thing. I have no idea why. Maybe he's not as left as he thinks he is, or whatever you said.
Have a nice holiday.
24 - Christopher Rose
Surely the silver lining is the very fact that the Republicans lost?
If they had won, the USA would be facing a very bleak and bitter future...
25 - Dr Dreadful
You'd rather be beating up on "easy targets" like Arch Conservative or Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor)
Archie, misguided though he may be, is more than capable of holding his own in any argument. Warren is... well... a bit special. And if you think I confine my targets to those whose arguments can be easily demolished, then you haven't been paying much attention. (How is your navel these days, BTW?)
rather than engage in a conversation in which your own presuppositions stand a chance of being challenged.
I ask you, this time, what you think those presuppositions are.
neither Cindy nor I have given you a cause to feel insulted
I didn't say that I, personally, felt insulted. But there is some accusatory dialogue involving dark-coloured items commonly found in the kitchen on your part.
Cindy's #18 epitomises this nicely: The followers of any cult are necessarily brainwashed into that cult's thinking. No matter how loose the boundaries of that thinking.
In other words, no matter what anyone says who doesn't happen to toe the line of Roger and Cindy's little clique, no matter how much variability their utterances may have from anyone else's, they can automatically be dismissed as brainwashed.
Now what does that pattern of behaviour remind me of? Oh, yes... a cult.