So many -isms and Men of Wisdom. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Bakhunin, they always need some Elder, some Holy Book, to rally behind. Why? Supposedly, the "left" is about equality. Isn't equality a fairly simple idea? One that doesn't need too much explication or coordination? How is it possible for someone to write thousands of pages on the subject of equality, or for people to form ginormous Kafkaesque bureaucracies to make it "work?"
Weird, I consider myself pretty far to the left in belief (in practice I would say left-middle is more practical to do), and I have never read many of these "holy books" or been a disciple of Marx, Che or whoever. Most people I know who have similar view points generally haven't either; it's more looking at what works/what is morally right and thinking that is what should be implemented.
That said, I don't think the left "needs" these philosophers and writers any more than the libertarians "needs" Ayn Rand and Ron Paul, or the right whoever they "look up to". They simply wrote books that people agree with and generally explained concepts more eloquently than the average man, therefor their quotes are used to convey those ideas. Just like I would quote Richard Dawkins or Carl Sagan when it comes to a field of science they wrote about... they convey ideas more efficiently and beautifully than I necessarily could. Hell, you could say atheists have a cult of personality when it comes to people like Carl Sagan and I think it would be about as accurate as your opening statement.
Also; >mfw you implied Stalin = leftist.
(//http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dO7wJG3C9Ww/TpssC9KM8GI/AAAAAAAAAGk/o0wasmCJ2_U/s1600/Laughing_Marx.jpg)
It's probably easier to understand the language as opposed to right wing terminology like 'trickle down' which is a euphemism for legal robbery.
AS IF Reagan bullshit doublespeak and MCARTHYISM don't have their own cult followers.
At least we can all agree that personality cults are a red flag.
Judy Garland had a cult following. Are you suggesting that somehow being a fanatical fan of Judy Garland is up there with say...Stalin? :-k
Quote from: "zarus tathra"So many -isms and Men of Wisdom. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Bakhunin, they always need some Elder, some Holy Book, to rally behind.
Some people have become brainwashed by the right and believe left idolizes guys like the above. Actually, except for the occasional wacko, the left does nothing of the sort and considers Marx, Lenin, and Stalin to be opportunistic assholes, not heroes, but that's not the image the right wants you to have of the left. So they repeat the lies over and over again until dumb ass voters believe the left are avid disciples of the worst leaders in history.
As for Elders and Holy books, they are in no more abundance on the left than the multitude of the right wing sweethearts like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Ann Coulter that stir up the idiots on the right into an dangerous orgasmic frenzy.
Quote...and considers Marx... to be opportunistic assholes...
Eh?
Not sure I agree with that, since he only theorised about it and didn't base a country on (if we want to consider Leninism and Stalinism even remotely) communism.
We can all be equal. Though it can be said that some people are better at things than others, through either natural talent or just working really really hard at it. And when those people write down their knowledge in books, if you're interested in that field, shouldn't you study them?
Is your problem that the subject matter is politics? You seem to have taken it to a single dimension and polarised it into a left view even though there are examples of the same thing on the right.
Uhmm..drugs r bad.. OK? [-X
I'd like to add that folks who blindly follow any ideology are as bad as folks who blindly follow certain people.
There's people who will just blindly agree with a position because its what their team believes, or try to fit everything through their ideological lens.
Thats why you get people who always think free market solutions are bad, or that government solutions are always bad, etc without looking at each thing on its own.
its easier to just have a kneejerk ideological cookie cutter answer.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"So many -isms and Men of Wisdom. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Bakhunin, they always need some Elder, some Holy Book, to rally behind. Why? Supposedly, the "left" is about equality. Isn't equality a fairly simple idea? One that doesn't need too much explication or coordination? How is it possible for someone to write thousands of pages on the subject of equality, or for people to form ginormous Kafkaesque bureaucracies to make it "work?"
Leftist are thinkers and conformity to a social norm isn't a trait of a thinker. BTW you left out some really great leftist like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, John Locke, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison....,etc!
There's a passage from a book called "Are you transhuman?" and they advise you never to read a book that's longer than like 100 pages. It's a bit extreme, but there's some truth to it. I mean, scientific papers are rarely more than like 25 pages long. Unless you're writing a math textbook or something, there's very little justification for making something that big.
That is rather stupid advice...
Its really not. Buy a random book from Amazon and I guarantee you it will be >90% fluff. Buy a book on politics and it'll be more like 99%.
There is a basic misunderstanding: when people say we are all equal, that is meant as, equal before the law. As individuals, we are anything but equal. When people speak of inequality, this is in regard to income earning. It's a political issue that can be resolved with... well yes, political will. None of this has anything to do with personality cult.
Fair enough. Equal standards for different people. Equal treatment for equal behavior. Too bad lots of egalitarians don't see things this way.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"Its really not. Buy a random book from Amazon and I guarantee you it will be >90% fluff. Buy a book on politics and it'll be more like 99%.
So my books about the cultural effects of the various invasions and integration of different cultures in Iran, 500+ page history of China, how Venice became a cultural and economic powerhouse, the rise and fall of the Mongol empire, the history and beliefs of the Shinto religion, the Dali Lama's speeches, anthropology books on the cultures of Africa, Central Asia and the Pacific Islands, my copy of the Shahnameh (Iranian poetry/history), pretty much any philosophy book and a whole other slew are just "fluff"?
Yeah, gonna call bullshit on that. Edit: Unless you want the book to read like a third grader wrote it; "This guy did this. That guy did this. The effect of this was this, this, this (with no expansion of what deeper impact those might have had)."
No thanks.
Quotethe cultural effects of the various invasions and integration of different cultures in Iran
Probably.
Quote500+ page history of China
China's a big, old country, so probably not.
Quotehow Venice became a cultural and economic powerhouse
This could most likely be summarized in terms of a short discussion of its location and its mechanisms of expansion and trade.
Quotepretty much any philosophy book
Well, yeah, probably.
Keep in mind that I don't take that suggestion TOO literally. That said, the Pythagorean love of brevity and precision is something that should be relearned by modern man. I am also aware that texts that follow this formula are difficult to read for anyone who isn't a quasi-Pythagorean like myself, so I wouldn't go burn the bookstore just yet. :D
Quote from: "mykcob4"Leftist are thinkers and conformity to a social norm isn't a trait of a thinker. BTW you left out some really great leftist like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, John Locke, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison....,etc!
Leftists aren't immune to conformist thinking.
Also, Lincoln, TR, Locke, Madison or Jefferson cannot be accurately described as leftist. That they were thinkers is unquestionable. But defining any of those guys in terms of modern politics is historical revisionsm. FDR and Paine, sure. Smart sonsabitches too. But both left and right have had their share on shit-for-brains.
"Rah rah, my team right or wrong!" is conformist thinking, no matter which side is practicing it.
QuoteWhy does the left wing have so many personality cults?
Probably the same reason as the right wing.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote...and considers Marx... to be opportunistic assholes...
Eh?
Not sure I agree with that, since he only theorised about it and didn't base a country on (if we want to consider Leninism and Stalinism even remotely) communism.
You're right. I was just copying the list given without taking them individually. But that mistake aside, the description of the successful strategy used by the right to pass the left off as wacko by making false associations is still correct.
I would hardly describe Stalin, Mao, Kim etc. as "leftists". They may have claimed to be so, but they were totalitarian dictators, and this is the very antithesis of liberalism.
It doesn't follow, despite the examples given, that personality cults are necessarily left wing. Mormonism was built on a personality cult from the beginning, and it certainly isn't viewed as liberal. There was never any equality in it, it is a very hierarchical and very patriarch-based organization. And Marx/Lenin did not in the end shape Communism as much as Stalin did. Socialism in the simplest form is almost non-governmental, being a sharing of all things. Communism was very centralized and very hierarchical because of Stalin. There may have been lip service paid to equality, but I wouldn't characterize it as liberal in action.
Yeah, the communists' idea of equality was "equal poverty and misery for all but a few privileged elites". This is not the stance of liberalism or egalitarianism.
As for clearly right-wing personality cults, probably the prime example is the one built around Hitler.
Hmmmm :-k Let's see..
Here we go, Sean Hannity, nope scratch him not very good example, he fall short of call Obama the actual N word each show. I do have faith that some day he will slip on that.
I got it! Glenn Beck, nope scratch him too he's got the big Mormon propaganda crap duster and cry baby.
How about Pat Robertson, no can't really use him either he's proved himself to shit all over just about every one but the rich white guy, unless you send him money.
I know Rush Limbaugh he is a druggy which means he has to be from the left wing crazy pot of nut jobs.
I am not sure why the left wing has so many personality cults. [-X
Quote from: "zarus tathra"Its really not. Buy a random book from Amazon and I guarantee you it will be >90% fluff. Buy a book on politics and it'll be more like 99%.
That is ridiculous. That's like saying Rodin's "Thinker" is just too big, or Michelangelo's "David" is just a bunch of marble beyond 2 square feet of it. Stephen Hawking's 'The Grand Design' is far more than 25 pages and I put it to you that there is hardly if any "fluff".
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "mykcob4"Leftist are thinkers and conformity to a social norm isn't a trait of a thinker. BTW you left out some really great leftist like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, John Locke, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison....,etc!
Leftists aren't immune to conformist thinking.
Also, Lincoln, TR, Locke, Madison or Jefferson cannot be accurately described as leftist. That they were thinkers is unquestionable. But defining any of those guys in terms of modern politics is historical revisionsm. FDR and Paine, sure. Smart sonsabitches too. But both left and right have had their share on shit-for-brains.
"Rah rah, my team right or wrong!" is conformist thinking, no matter which side is practicing it.
Don't start. Everyone I posted is definitely leftist then and now. I like how the right tries to hijack famous lefties and claim that they would be righties nowadays. It's a big lie, always has been and lie, always will be a lie. It's not history revisionism or anything of the kind. And the rah rah shit argument is old and inaccurate.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "mykcob4"Leftist are thinkers and conformity to a social norm isn't a trait of a thinker. BTW you left out some really great leftist like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, John Locke, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison....,etc!
Leftists aren't immune to conformist thinking.
Also, Lincoln, TR, Locke, Madison or Jefferson cannot be accurately described as leftist. That they were thinkers is unquestionable. But defining any of those guys in terms of modern politics is historical revisionsm. FDR and Paine, sure. Smart sonsabitches too. But both left and right have had their share on shit-for-brains.
"Rah rah, my team right or wrong!" is conformist thinking, no matter which side is practicing it.
Don't start. Everyone I posted is definitely leftist then and now. I like how the right tries to hijack famous lefties and claim that they would be righties nowadays. It's a big lie, always has been and lie, always will be a lie. It's not history revisionism or anything of the kind. And the rah rah shit argument is old and inaccurate.
I think there tends to be a lot of confusion about "left". The word is not synonymous with Democrat. Even terms like left and right are kind of meaningless. Perhaps we should be talking about progressive vs stationary. Or if that offends the "stationary", you could even say "reactionary vs stationary."
Quote from: "mykcob4"Don't start. Everyone I posted is definitely leftist then and now.
In his day, Lincoln was certainly not a "leftist", nor TR.
Quote from: "mykcob4"I like how the right tries to hijack famous lefties and claim that they would be righties nowadays. It's a big lie, always has been and lie, always will be a lie. It's not history revisionism or anything of the kind.
You keep telling yourself that.
Quote from: "mykcob4"And the rah rah shit argument is old and inaccurate.
Sorry, but your Team Left! cheerleading, to the point that you would think that leftists are immune to conformism, is stupid.
For the record, I'm a centrist. Of course, you'll call me a fascist for that admission.
Are Conspiracy followers and deniers personality cults? :shock: :-k :-$ :P :lol: Solitary
Sarah Palin for the repubs and Ron Paul for the libertarians. Those lefties aren't the only ones who have personality cults.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "mykcob4"Don't start. Everyone I posted is definitely leftist then and now.
In his day, Lincoln was certainly not a "leftist", nor TR.
Quote from: "mykcob4"I like how the right tries to hijack famous lefties and claim that they would be righties nowadays. It's a big lie, always has been and lie, always will be a lie. It's not history revisionism or anything of the kind.
You keep telling yourself that.
Quote from: "mykcob4"And the rah rah shit argument is old and inaccurate.
Sorry, but your Team Left! cheerleading, to the point that you would think that leftists are immune to conformism, is stupid.
For the record, I'm a centrist. Of course, you'll call me a fascist for that admission.
Bullshit. Lincoln and TR were most definitely left.
I don't tell myself that. It is historical fact. Both fought the establishment conservative for progressive changes. I didn't and won't call you anything and stop calling me a cheerleader. If you can't handle the facts then sit back and learn something.
Quote from: "Solitary"Are Conspiracy followers and deniers personality cults? :shock: :-k :-$ :P :lol: Solitary
The entire tea party...pretty much..yup! =D>
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Quote from: "Solitary"Are Conspiracy followers and deniers personality cults? :shock: :-k :-$ :P :lol: Solitary
The entire tea party...pretty much..yup! =D>
With St. Reagan as their figurehead.
(Reagan was a horrible president, but the righties worship him like he's lord gawd almighty.)
LBJ supported "civil rights," but he also escalated the Vietnam War. You win some, you lose some, right?