Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Are You Leaning Far Enough to the Right to be Considered a Fascist?

roachboy · 03-06-2008, 07:10 AM

loquitor: again if i strip away the libertarian eccentricites that shape your rhetoric, i can see that we're maybe not so far apart--but why should i have to do that if the idea is to have a debate or discussion? over and over it comes to the same thing--a little fight over who gets to control the rhetoric. we can agree that socialism departs from an understanding of capitalist markets--and maybe even that this understanding derives from the history of actual markets as opposed to their self-regulating floating-all-boats metaphysical duplicates (see? there it is already.) more neutrally--we have no agreement about which capitalism to look at in these debates---i prefer looking at historical capitalism, you know, the stuff that happens and that happened in the 3-d world---i dont know if you do--from your arguments here it doesn't sound like that.

if there is no agreement about what is even meant by capitalism--in that i talk about historical forms and you talk about "self-regulating markets" or whatever---but in general, you seem to like ideal-types--then there is no argument, there's just a differend.

i say that most democratic socialist arguments about wealth redistribution follow from the way they see markets working historically and the implications of this for the social context they operate in---you don't acknowledge the premise and then repeat stuff about "violation" or "circumscription" of property rights.

this is metaphysics.
but even in mideval metaphysics, debate was possible because there would be agreement that there is a debate because people would be talking about the same thing.
term switching--which is all that is happening here--i go one way, you another--isn't debate.
we keep doing this too.
it isn't interesting--and it cant be much more interesting for you.
so what are we talking about?
i am not interested in fictions like hayek's markets--simply because in hayek's work THEY'RE FICTIONS.
so if you want to talk about socialism==or democratic socialism---you have to abandon talking in terms of fictions as your point of departure.

or we can just do something else.
the world is big, this is small.

03-06-2008, 07:10 AM	#58 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	loquitor: again if i strip away the libertarian eccentricites that shape your rhetoric, i can see that we're maybe not so far apart--but why should i have to do that if the idea is to have a debate or discussion? over and over it comes to the same thing--a little fight over who gets to control the rhetoric. we can agree that socialism departs from an understanding of capitalist markets--and maybe even that this understanding derives from the history of actual markets as opposed to their self-regulating floating-all-boats metaphysical duplicates (see? there it is already.) more neutrally--we have no agreement about which capitalism to look at in these debates---i prefer looking at historical capitalism, you know, the stuff that happens and that happened in the 3-d world---i dont know if you do--from your arguments here it doesn't sound like that. if there is no agreement about what is even meant by capitalism--in that i talk about historical forms and you talk about "self-regulating markets" or whatever---but in general, you seem to like ideal-types--then there is no argument, there's just a differend. i say that most democratic socialist arguments about wealth redistribution follow from the way they see markets working historically and the implications of this for the social context they operate in---you don't acknowledge the premise and then repeat stuff about "violation" or "circumscription" of property rights. this is metaphysics. but even in mideval metaphysics, debate was possible because there would be agreement that there is a debate because people would be talking about the same thing. term switching--which is all that is happening here--i go one way, you another--isn't debate. we keep doing this too. it isn't interesting--and it cant be much more interesting for you. so what are we talking about? i am not interested in fictions like hayek's markets--simply because in hayek's work THEY'RE FICTIONS. so if you want to talk about socialism==or democratic socialism---you have to abandon talking in terms of fictions as your point of departure. or we can just do something else. the world is big, this is small. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite