New political discovery.

[Pliny]

On a different thread I happened to mention that substituting when left wing leaders use "we" they really mean "I". It makes sense since they think in the collective and in terms like one for all and all for one, the global community and things like that. Individuality is lost in this concept.

The right, when they use the term "we" mean a collection or gathering of individuals with something in common.

In order to get a long with the left you need to abandon concepts of individuality and speak in terms of the collective or "we". As an example let's say, "We need to take care of the environment." The left-wing leader doesn't mean you need to take care of the environment. It means he will take care of it for you. He has a plan.

Some left wing supporters are sometimes confused and use the term "I" in the misconceived notion that they, as individuals, can effect something. Only leaders in command of the masses can effect things by using the masses to do so.

The right wing leader who says, "We need to take care of the environment.", means that each individual needs to be conscious of his actions as regards the environment and do our best in whatever we are doing to keep the environment clean.

What does the left wing leadership mean when they say, "We need to give back to the community." Do they mean "I"? Yes. He doesn't "need" to give back though, he does that with his every action. In this case you are being made to feel guilty but they are already giving back to the community through their dedicated leadership and contribution to all. In other words, you have to pay your taxes, dues and more back to him who is already doing so much. If it weren't for him you would still be living in caves. Well, you'd probably be getting minimum wage or working twelve hour days or something like that. He is always giving so much back to the community and you don't give enough.

When a right wing leader says, "We need to give back to the community - wait a second - we are the community! If we are as individuals co-operating voluntarily with other individuals we comprise the community. Some of us provide jobs for others, some provide staples like food and clothing, some provide services, and there is a myriad of activities that constitute a community why would someone feel they need to give back to something they help create and evolve through time. Oh...it's one of those guilt trips the left likes to hang on people.

Anyway, I wouldn't mind discussing this idea. I suppose it relates more to individuality and it's disappearance on the left. I don't really think of right wing socialism as being right wing. I think of it as being a form of socialism that socialists are jealous of and try to discredit them by associating them with the right wing.

Stalin did that with the Nazi's and Fascists in the twenties and thirties.

So that has to be kept in mind. I just find left wing socialism to be more international in scope and right wing socialism to be more national. That's their biggest difference, along with the ownership of production but they are both socialist in my view. Some may argue they aren't but if the terms are understood at the beginning as to what they define then it is not a relevant argument.

[Shwa]

On a different thread I happened to mention that substituting when left wing leaders use "we" they really mean "I". It makes sense since they think in the collective and in terms like one for all and all for one, the global community and things like that. Individuality is lost in this concept.

The right, when they use the term "we" mean a collection or gathering of individuals with something in common.

In order to get a long with the left you need to abandon concepts of individuality and speak in terms of the collective or "we". As an example let's say, "We need to take care of the environment." The left-wing leader doesn't mean you need to take care of the environment. It means he will take care of it for you. He has a plan.

Some left wing supporters are sometimes confused and use the term "I" in the misconceived notion that they, as individuals, can effect something. Only leaders in command of the masses can effect things by using the masses to do so.

The right wing leader who says, "We need to take care of the environment.", means that each individual needs to be conscious of his actions as regards the environment and do our best in whatever we are doing to keep the environment clean.

What does the left wing leadership mean when they say, "We need to give back to the community." Do they mean "I"? Yes. He doesn't "need" to give back though, he does that with his every action. In this case you are being made to feel guilty but they are already giving back to the community through their dedicated leadership and contribution to all. In other words, you have to pay your taxes, dues and more back to him who is already doing so much. If it weren't for him you would still be living in caves. Well, you'd probably be getting minimum wage or working twelve hour days or something like that. He is always giving so much back to the community and you don't give enough.

When a right wing leader says, "We need to give back to the community - wait a second - we are the community! If we are as individuals co-operating voluntarily with other individuals we comprise the community. Some of us provide jobs for others, some provide staples like food and clothing, some provide services, and there is a myriad of activities that constitute a community why would someone feel they need to give back to something they help create and evolve through time. Oh...it's one of those guilt trips the left likes to hang on people.

Anyway, I wouldn't mind discussing this idea. I suppose it relates more to individuality and it's disappearance on the left. I don't really think of right wing socialism as being right wing. I think of it as being a form of socialism that socialists are jealous of and try to discredit them by associating them with the right wing.

Stalin did that with the Nazi's and Fascists in the twenties and thirties.

So that has to be kept in mind. I just find left wing socialism to be more international in scope and right wing socialism to be more national. That's their biggest difference, along with the ownership of production but they are both socialist in my view. Some may argue they aren't but if the terms are understood at the beginning as to what they define then it is not a relevant argument.

I think the oversimplification and resultant obfuscation is a direct functional result of the way in which your narrative is constructed through the attribution of stereotypical rhetoric to imaginary persons. In other words, you are creating a strawman argument.

How about giving a few real world examples that stay away from Stalin and Nazis? You know, actual quotes from real contemporary "left wing leaders" that can be shown in an event-chain as revealing motive to particular acts. Otherwise you are just guessing in the most general of ways.

Edited October 19, 2010 by Shwa

[Michael Hardner]

I get what Pliny is saying. Often, I have had the opposite reaction though: that "we" means "you".

After all, when they say "we need to think about the environment more" they can't be pointing at themselves can they ? Or if they are, then at least they're much less of a problem than the average folk are.

Such language seems, to my mind, to come from an uncertain view of the people to whom they are speaking. Is it the masses, or is it the public ? Is it a great anonymous herd of people that need to be corralled and controlled, or is a collection of thinking individuals that are responsible for their choices ?

As with the light- and particle- theories of light, both views need to be considered as correct.

[Shwa]

I get what Pliny is saying. Often, I have had the opposite reaction though: that "we" means "you".

Then perhaps you wouldn't mind supplying a few contemporary real world examples instead of the touchy-feely anecdotal impressionism that you so hate yourself. I think Pliny is trying to raise an interesting idea about language in politics, but without some specificity it is more of a glob than a point. Otherwise it ends up with 6 being 9, right being wrong, left being right, we being I and so on and so on.

As with the light- and particle- theories of light, both views need to be considered as correct.

Do they? Prove it.

[Michael Hardner]

Then perhaps you wouldn't mind supplying a few contemporary real world examples instead of the touchy-feely anecdotal impressionism that you so hate yourself.

I hate anecdotes when they're provided as proof. They're useless. This discussion is only about impressions, and social habits.

Anyway, what do you want ? An example of an environmentalist using the term "we" ? Do you really need that ? Alternately, you want proof as to what they mean in their heart when they say that ? There's no such thing.

I think Pliny is trying to raise an interesting idea about language in politics, but without some specificity it is more of a glob than a point. Otherwise it ends up with 6 being 9, right being wrong, left being right, we being I and so on and so on.

Specifically, he seems to find the use of "we" pretentious. It's a qualitative and subjective appraisal, I think.

Do they? Prove it.

The mass theory of citizenry, if you want to call it that, works well when campaign planners are mapping out communication strategies and buying advertising and so on. But democracy itself relies on the fact that people aren't just receivers of advertising, and that people will elect the right leaders, generally, over time.

[Shwa]

I hate anecdotes when they're provided as proof. They're useless. This discussion is only about impressions, and social habits.

My mistake, I thought you were using your anecdotal impressionism to make the point that " ...both views need to be considered as correct." I see you are just guessing too and your guess is as good as any... I guess.

Anyway, what do you want ? An example of an environmentalist using the term "we" ? Do you really need that ? Alternately, you want proof as to what they mean in their heart when they say that ? There's no such thing.

"...actual quotes from real contemporary "left wing leaders" that can be shown in an event-chain as revealing motive to particular acts."

Do I need to be more clear about this? Even a meagre attempt at something kinda-like evidence to some sort of coherent historical process is better than saying, well, It's "in their heart" we'll never know what they mean, let's just forget about it and make shit up. To hell with Brainy Quote!

Specifically, he seems to find the use of "we" pretentious. It's a qualitative and subjective appraisal, I think.

More personal anecdote Michael, will you ever learn?

The mass theory of citizenry, if you want to call it that, works well when campaign planners are mapping out communication strategies and buying advertising and so on. But democracy itself relies on the fact that people aren't just receivers of advertising, and that people will elect the right leaders, generally, over time.

According to who - you?

[Michael Hardner]

My mistake, I thought you were using your anecdotal impressionism to make the point that " ...both views need to be considered as correct." I see you are just guessing too and your guess is as good as any... I guess.

Well... yes... kind of like a Christian saying "there is a God"... although they're speaking as if these were facts, it's a personal view without support.

But hopefully, you can get what I'm saying. It's a statement about how we view people, and there's a truism there - but I'm saying that there is a human truth in both statements about the way we view people. Do you see what I mean ?

"...actual quotes from real contemporary "left wing leaders" that can be shown in an event-chain as revealing motive to particular acts."

Do I need to be more clear about this? Even a meagre attempt at something kinda-like evidence to some sort of coherent historical process is better than saying, well, It's "in their heart" we'll never know what they mean, let's just forget about it and make shit up. To hell with Brainy Quote!

We're talking about how we see these people, how they appear to us when they speak, and the impression it gives. What facts could I tell you about that ?

According to who - you?

Yes. It's my opinion. Do you doubt it ? Do you doubt that elections are run like mass advertising campaigns and that the money, time, and strategy that go into them are devoted to that idea - towards the goal of electing the candidate ? Do you doubt that democracy would fail if it were just the bed advertising that won the campaign every time ?

[Shwa]

Well... yes... kind of like a Christian saying "there is a God"... although they're speaking as if these were facts, it's a personal view without support.

But hopefully, you can get what I'm saying. It's a statement about how we view people, and there's a truism there - but I'm saying that there is a human truth in both statements about the way we view people. Do you see what I mean ?

Oh, I get what you are saying. Your analogy with the Christian makes it perfectly clear.

We're talking about how we see these people, how they appear to us when they speak, and the impression it gives. What facts could I tell you about that ?

Because "these people" will forever be able to fit your view and when they no longer suit your utility, you will move on to other "these people." Even though your view might be complete bullshit or a profound universal truth, all you got is a group of strawmen on a shifting ground. A creek and no paddle as it were.

I am saying that if Pliny provides some real, contemporary examples with a little background he is at least making an attempt to provide some real insight into political language and meaning. He seems to take himself seriously enough, why shouldn't I return the courtesy?

Yes. It's my opinion. Do you doubt it ? Do you doubt that elections are run like mass advertising campaigns and that the money, time, and strategy that go into them are devoted to that idea - towards the goal of electing the candidate ? Do you doubt that democracy would fail if it were just the bed advertising that won the campaign every time ?

Is that what you are really saying though, in response to the OP? Because if I read things right and waves are particles and particle are waves, then it would appear that both your opinion and it's counterpoint should be regarded as true.

That was we can all get along just fine. Right?

[Michael Hardner]

Because "these people" will forever be able to fit your view and when they no longer suit your utility, you will move on to other "these people." Even though your view might be complete bullshit or a profound universal truth, all you got is a group of strawmen on a shifting ground. A creek and no paddle as it were.

Well, poke holes in it then. I have asked you if you doubt these things are said. Do you doubt that they use the term "we" ? Do you disagree with how I perceive it ?

Instead of dancing around my opinion, and saying "Look ! Michael has formed an impression on something, but doesn't state that it's a fact !" then state your own.

It's a fact that I like Thai food, but it's an opinion that Thai food is good.

Is that what you are really saying though, in response to the OP? Because if I read things right and waves are particles and particle are waves, then it would appear that both your opinion and it's counterpoint should be regarded as true.

Well, yes - as is plainly apparent from my example.

[Shwa]

Well, poke holes in it then. I have asked you if you doubt these things are said. Do you doubt that they use the term "we" ? Do you disagree with how I perceive it ?

Instead of dancing around my opinion, and saying "Look ! Michael has formed an impression on something, but doesn't state that it's a fact !" then state your own.

I did state my own, requesting Pliny to supply some meat to go with the gravy. I am not sure why you have a problem with substantiating something accorded as a "New political discovery."

Otherwise it's the same old bullshit wouldn't you agree?

[Pliny]

I get what Pliny is saying. Often, I have had the opposite reaction though: that "we" means "you".

After all, when they say "we need to think about the environment more" they can't be pointing at themselves can they ? Or if they are, then at least they're much less of a problem than the average folk are.

I can see how it could be conceived that the opposite might be so, that "we" means "you". You have to be a bit of an individual to see that. If you mean "you" in the first party then you are not a part of "we". You have individualized or remain individualized. If you look at it from the third party perspective then "you" means the group as a whole including the leader. So when the Leader says "we must think about the environment more" one is encouraged to think in the third party sense of "we" and it includes everyone.

Such language seems, to my mind, to come from an uncertain view of the people to whom they are speaking. Is it the masses, or is it the public ? Is it a great anonymous herd of people that need to be corralled and controlled, or is a collection of thinking individuals that are responsible for their choices?

Precisely the question. To most political leaders the public is a great anonymous herd of people that need to be corralled and controlled. Individuality is not conducive to this but leadership must remain individual. However, leadership must be perceived by the masses in terms of the collective will or as "we". Otherwise, the leadership and it's followers is perceived to be "them".

[Michael Hardner]

I did state my own, requesting Pliny to supply some meat to go with the gravy. I am not sure why you have a problem with substantiating something accorded as a "New political discovery."

Otherwise it's the same old bullshit wouldn't you agree?

Clearly it's his idea - so that's meat and gravy right there. Is it bullshit ? No more than you saying you like meat with gravy. If you don't like meat with gravy, or think he's an idiot for liking it then sound do off.

[Michael Hardner]

Precisely the question. To most political leaders the public is a great anonymous herd of people that need to be corralled and controlled. Individuality is not conducive to this but leadership must remain individual. However, leadership must be perceived by the masses in terms of the collective will or as "we". Otherwise, the leadership and it's followers is perceived to be "them".

Since you're an individualist, do you have any examples where you see the public as a "mass" instead of a group of individuals with responsible thoughts and opinions ?

[Pliny]

I did state my own, requesting Pliny to supply some meat to go with the gravy. I am not sure why you have a problem with substantiating something accorded as a "New political discovery."

Otherwise it's the same old bullshit wouldn't you agree?

I offer it as a premise, an hypothesis for discussion. It is the same old bullshit.

The question is why you would want to sit at the table, ask to be supplied the meat, potatoes and the gravy and complain about being served the same old bullshit.

[Pliny]

Since you're an individualist, do you have any examples where you see the public as a "mass" instead of a group of individuals with responsible thoughts and opinions ?

You mean where individual thought appears to be over-ridden and people do what under normal circumstances they wouldn't?

There is the "mob" of course. Turning over cars in the street is not an example of a group of individuals with responsible thoughts and opinions in the moment. If you have seen passers by not aid an individual in obvious distress then you have witnessed the public acting as a "mass" instead of a group of individuals with responsible thoughts and opinions. A mob of shoppers stampeding and killing a person is an example of a "mass" instead of a group of individuals with responsible thoughts and opinions.

Germans for the most part ignored or seemed to agree with Hitler and the result was national supremacy and genetic superiority, obviously rational thought had been replaced by political/scientific gobbeldygook that led to WW II and the holocaust. Obviously, some Germans maintained their individuality but most were riding the irresponsible wave of thought and opinion that "we are great", greater than all others.

[Pliny]

Clearly it's his idea - so that's meat and gravy right there. Is it bullshit ? No more than you saying you like meat with gravy. If you don't like meat with gravy, or think he's an idiot for liking it then sound do off.

It isn't my idea. The idea has it's base in individuality. I just haven't read or seen it discussed in this frame of reference and would like to expand upon it. It may get some substance or it may remain in the realm of bullshit.

Have a seat at the table Shwa - hope you brought the dessert, as bitter as it might be.

[Shwa]

I offer it as a premise, an hypothesis for discussion. It is the same old bullshit.

The question is why you would want to sit at the table, ask to be supplied the meat, potatoes and the gravy and complain about being served the same old bullshit.

Because I was expecting meat and gravy? I mean, is that so difficult to understand?

The problem here Pliny that your "hypothesis for discussion" is over-simplified and obfuscated. And is too bad since you entitled the thread "new political discovery" only to admit that it's the same old bullshit. I think you were actually on to something, but perhaps not after all...

[Pliny]

Because I was expecting meat and gravy? I mean, is that so difficult to understand?

The problem here Pliny that your "hypothesis for discussion" is over-simplified and obfuscated. And is too bad since you entitled the thread "new political discovery" only to admit that it's the same old bullshit. I think you were actually on to something, but perhaps not after all...

Well, you are supposed offer up the cherry on your dessert. You think I was actually onto something? ....now that's bullshit.

[Jack Weber]

By your same old bullshit,are you saying(as usual) that all bed political ideas come from the Left,including Fascism???

I mean,I've had this discussion with you before,and I simply think you're wrong,but is this the "new political discovery"?

[Pliny]

By your same old bullshit,are you saying(as usual) that all bed political ideas come from the Left,including Fascism???

No. The political spectrum goes from anarchy to the Totalitarian State. I'm saying b{a}d political ideas come from supporters, engineers and the power-mongers of big government. It seems to me that on the currently popular left-right paradigm there are big government ideas on the left and the right.

As far as socialist political parties being assigned to the right wing of the political spectrum. You can't deny facts. Mussolini was a socialist until the socialists railroaded him out of town in the early twenties. And Stalin along with the German Communist party and socialists in Germany successfully distanced themselves from Hitler through a propaganda campaign trying to win voters away by saying he wasn't truly a socialist, since socialism was popular at the time - although his party was called the National Socialist Party. Nicky and yourself agrees with the propaganda. Hitler really wans't a socialist. But if you read the platform of the National Socialist party as it was drawn up it cannot be described as anything but socialist.

I mean,I've had this discussion with you before,and I simply think you're wrong,but is this the "new political discovery"?

No. We are using the old right-left paradigm to describe the use of euphemisms and sheer, cloudy political vagueness by the use and abuse of pronouns by party leaders, how those pronouns are understood by the masses and how the concepts of those pronouns influence their thoughts and actions as regards individuality and the collective.

Mostly the same old bullshit from me about the lib-left. Right now, Hardner and I are rummaging through our thoughts on it but we need more material.

[dre]

I chuckle when I often see folks on the conservative right try to claim the concept of individualism as their own. The liberty of individuals is an entirely liberal concept, and the vast majority of things that infringe on individual liberty are actually things that were supported by conservatives... the church as a civil authority for example... or fascism or slavery... or the entire concept of religion which is basically dictates your decisions must be governed by whats in some 2000 year old book. These are all conservative concepts and conservatives fought tooth and nail to keep them in place.

The reason individuals in modern LIBERAL democracies have personal rights and freedoms is because for the last 300 years weve been collectively telling conservatives to go piss up a rope.

[Shwa]

I chuckle when I often see folks on the conservative right try to claim the concept of individualism as their own. The liberty of individuals is an entirely liberal concept, and the vast majority of things that infringe on individual liberty are actually things that were supported by conservatives... the church as a civil authority for example... or fascism or slavery... or the entire concept of religion which is basically dictates your decisions must be governed by whats in some 2000 year old book. These are all conservative concepts and conservatives fought tooth and nail to keep them in place.

The reason individuals in modern LIBERAL democracies have personal rights and freedoms is because for the last 300 years weve been collectively telling conservatives to go piss up a rope.

Hayden White, for the purposes of his Metahistory and tropological theory of historical narrative, defined conservatism as standing for functional gradualizations that are socially congruent while liberalism stands for functional adjustments that are relatively congruent.

So it doesn't matter who can claim historical authorship of this or that social phenomenon; allowing that sort of piecemeal parcelling of social phenomena leaves the conservatives firmly in charge of the army and police.

In other words, conservatives tend towards careful, gradual changes in society that are in keeping with the perception of what the majority of society wants, while liberalism tends to make quick, sometimes large adjustments to social institutions despite what society may or may not want.

So even though individualism might have come from the ideas of classic Liberalism, modern conservatives can claim that individualism is being 'adjusted' in unhealthy or unpredictable ways that are not good. They aren't being conservative for the sake of Thomas Hobbes, they are being conservative about their own society. (Same with liberals and their modern liberal ideas)

That being said, we are all - by and large - liberals and centrists to a great degree. Despite his cynicism, guys like Pliny - and even our banned friend GrainFedPrairieBoy - often provide contrasts to our centrist ideas that can expose flaws, misunderstandings and even provide the most ardent conservatives with a case for adjustment or the most ardent liberal with a case for graduation.

BTW - I have never met a conservative worthy of the name that is static or simply wishing for the stand pat status quo. Conservatives have, by definition, an attitude towards growth and prosperity as valid as any other.

Having said that, I find some of the modern CPC "conservatives" to be more radical since they preach, as White would define, a radicalism that stands for reconstruction of institutions along with a transcendent idea of change. I just don't think that sort of radicalism is worthwhile in this country, in this day and age.

Edited November 8, 2010 by Shwa

[Pliny]

I chuckle when I often see folks on the conservative right try to claim the concept of individualism as their own. The liberty of individuals is an entirely liberal concept, and the vast majority of things that infringe on individual liberty are actually things that were supported by conservatives... the church as a civil authority for example... or fascism or slavery... or the entire concept of religion which is basically dictates your decisions must be governed by whats in some 2000 year old book. These are all conservative concepts and conservatives fought tooth and nail to keep them in place.

All very true, dre. But liberalism has been taken over by socialism. I would describe myself as a classical liberal and not a conservative. However, Since the centre of the political spectrum has been moved I find myself on the right side without having changed my views a wit.

The reason individuals in modern LIBERAL democracies have personal rights and freedoms is because for the last 300 years weve been collectively telling conservatives to go piss up a rope.

Not you. Real liberals. You are a socialist.

Edited November 13, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Hayden White, for the purposes of his Metahistory and tropological theory of historical narrative, defined conservatism as standing for functional gradualizations that are socially congruent while liberalism stands for functional adjustments that are relatively congruent.

So it doesn't matter who can claim historical authorship of this or that social phenomenon; allowing that sort of piecemeal parcelling of social phenomena leaves the conservatives firmly in charge of the army and police.

In other words, conservatives tend towards careful, gradual changes in society that are in keeping with the perception of what the majority of society wants, while liberalism tends to make quick, sometimes large adjustments to social institutions despite what society may or may not want.

So even though individualism might have come from the ideas of classic Liberalism, modern conservatives can claim that individualism is being 'adjusted' in unhealthy or unpredictable ways that are not good. They aren't being conservative for the sake of Thomas Hobbes, they are being conservative about their own society. (Same with liberals and their modern liberal ideas)

That being said, we are all - by and large - liberals and centrists to a great degree. Despite his cynicism, guys like Pliny - and even our banned friend GrainFedPrairieBoy - often provide contrasts to our centrist ideas that can expose flaws, misunderstandings and even provide the most ardent conservatives with a case for adjustment or the most ardent liberal with a case for graduation.

BTW - I have never met a conservative worthy of the name that is static or simply wishing for the stand pat status quo. Conservatives have, by definition, an attitude towards growth and prosperity as valid as any other.

Having said that, I find some of the modern CPC "conservatives" to be more radical since they preach, as White would define, a radicalism that stands for reconstruction of institutions along with a transcendent idea of change. I just don't think that sort of radicalism is worthwhile in this country, in this day and age.

That was a good laugh.

[Shwa]

But liberalism has been taken over by socialism.

But not classical liberalism right? It still remains classical liberalism for someone who is over 300 years old I mean?

I would describe myself as a classical liberal and not a conservative.

By describing yourself as a "classical liberal" doesn't that define you as a conservative regardless of how you describe yourself?

However, Since the centre of the political spectrum has been moved I find myself on the right side without having changed my views a wit.

I find that hard to believe unless you are over 300 years old.

Not you. Real liberals. You are a socialist.

By "real liberals" you mean "classical liberal" right? You know that notion of liberalism that has been conserved all these centuries?