onceseen
9th February 2011, 10:38 AM
A dialectic (aka Hegelean dialectic) is a sophisticated form of a false dichotomy. It works like this: first, two seemingly contradictory ideologies are created. Next, the ideologies are advertised in the appropriate way so that people are conditioned to accept the ideologies as either/or (=the only alternatives). Most will accept this, some won't...regardless, the aim is to pigeonhole everyone into one of the two camps. Once that happens, the ideologies are subtly tweaked over time, this is called synthesis. This is another riff on the old 'incremental change', 'mission creep' strat. Of course, the tweaking is always done with a certain goal in mind, even if that goal is years or decades away. The changes are small and almost imperceptible. If you take a look at a mature dialectic, (example: republican vs. democrat) the ideologies eventually merge and become so similar it's tough to tell them apart.
Let's take a look at the capitalist vs. socialist dialectic. First, the capitalists: free markets are efficient. Entitlements sap morality and create dependence. Give a man a fish, he eats for a day...Productivity should be incentived and not vica versa. Unions are greedy. Less regulation. Blah blah blah, I won't rehash the ideology because everybody knows it.
The main problem with this ideology is that it seeks to blame the victims and not the perpetrators of our present condition. Those that are on 'entitlements' (and by the way, this term has been intentionally distorted to conflate charity with non charity) aren't the ones that have destroyed the system. Neither have public employees or even unions (this is what I call my 'get out your calculator' defense). Furthermore, why should people that have had their capacity to earn a living and support their families stolen from them by criminals be forced to suffer the consequences of the actions of others? It is nothing less than sheer hypocrisy to suggest that victims be held hyper accountable for a situation largely beyond their control, yet ignore the fact that our present system is set up largely to allow rich people to legally rob and oppress people.
On to the socialists: Governments require no profit to operate. Capitalism is predatory. We are all in this together. There is plenty to go around for everyone. Again, everybody knows the idealogy. Some comments-
It starts with the straw man argument that free markets don't work. We do not have a free market and we never have. The problem is not free markets, the problem is one of power derived from ill begotten money. Socialism proposes to solve the problem by handing ALL of the power to a known criminal organization and collectively cross our fingers. Collective accountability is really just a different flavor of mortgage tranches or companies sliced into a million different pieces or insurance; it's the reason we are in this mess in the first place. You can't solve an acountability problem by laying off 100% of the accountability to an unaccountable entity.
It is my hope that this post spurs some honest debate; and also that it gets people to think not just in terms of A or B, but in terms of A, B, C, D...etc.
once
Let's take a look at the capitalist vs. socialist dialectic. First, the capitalists: free markets are efficient. Entitlements sap morality and create dependence. Give a man a fish, he eats for a day...Productivity should be incentived and not vica versa. Unions are greedy. Less regulation. Blah blah blah, I won't rehash the ideology because everybody knows it.
The main problem with this ideology is that it seeks to blame the victims and not the perpetrators of our present condition. Those that are on 'entitlements' (and by the way, this term has been intentionally distorted to conflate charity with non charity) aren't the ones that have destroyed the system. Neither have public employees or even unions (this is what I call my 'get out your calculator' defense). Furthermore, why should people that have had their capacity to earn a living and support their families stolen from them by criminals be forced to suffer the consequences of the actions of others? It is nothing less than sheer hypocrisy to suggest that victims be held hyper accountable for a situation largely beyond their control, yet ignore the fact that our present system is set up largely to allow rich people to legally rob and oppress people.
On to the socialists: Governments require no profit to operate. Capitalism is predatory. We are all in this together. There is plenty to go around for everyone. Again, everybody knows the idealogy. Some comments-
It starts with the straw man argument that free markets don't work. We do not have a free market and we never have. The problem is not free markets, the problem is one of power derived from ill begotten money. Socialism proposes to solve the problem by handing ALL of the power to a known criminal organization and collectively cross our fingers. Collective accountability is really just a different flavor of mortgage tranches or companies sliced into a million different pieces or insurance; it's the reason we are in this mess in the first place. You can't solve an acountability problem by laying off 100% of the accountability to an unaccountable entity.
It is my hope that this post spurs some honest debate; and also that it gets people to think not just in terms of A or B, but in terms of A, B, C, D...etc.
once