Thursday, August 09, 2007

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

When you start seeing strings of hypothetical questions ("Geez Wally, what would ol' Ben Franklin do about the dreadful poverty?"), that's a good sign some maudlin suburbanite liberal has been short on the tithing plate, or reading some Screepture, or perhaps trying to hustle his more successful pal at Tandy Corp, or is it his fellow LDS Elder-Bot.

""""""It was precisely Marx who had first discovered the great law of motion of history, the law according to which all historical struggles, whether they proceed in the political, religious, philosophical or some other ideological domain, are in fact only the more or less clear expression of struggles of social classes, and that the existence and thereby the collisions, too, between these classes are in turn conditioned by the degree of development of their economic position, by the mode of their production and of their exchange determined by it. This law, which has the same significance for history as the law of the transformation of energy has for natural science - this law gave him here, too, the key to an understanding of the history of the Second French Republic.[42] He put his law to the test on these historical events, and even after thirty-three years we must still say that it has stood the test brilliantly.""""" (Engels, Intro. to 18th Brumaire


Perezoso said...

Perezoso said...
“”"”"this issue also touches down on a critical economic problem, that RA Wilson tallked about extenisvely (sic): How ethical is the Puritan Work Ethic as automation slowly but surely replaces every single job that used to feed families and send kids to college?”"”

Predictable booj-wah sentiment, poorly written and as colloquial as like, say, the usual blogchat of some frat house in Texass. And Tex begs the question of what “ethical” is, and conflates ethics with economics.

The assumption that some pure egalitarianism is more “ethical” (more just, good, superior to) than divisions–even great divisions– in wealth and property needs to be established. Yeah, sort of bo-ring (and RAWilson doesn't offer much assistance), but Galbraith might help. (Or the first few chapters of Hobbes' Leviathan). Which is to say, such divides exist: but the question of how to remedy, or even whether they “ought” to be remedied is another issue, and rather troubling. John Rawls’ “Theory of Justice” another guidebook, of course a bit more steep than " Magical Child of Non-Locality" or "Be a Crowleyan for Phunn and Profit" that Tex uses as his econ. guides (maybe he will learn someday to write nearly as well as pulp hack RAW did).

Tex could review some Hume and Hobbes for the problems of "constructive" secular ethics--and politics. Or say some material from that great old comedy team Marx and Engels. But that ain't likely to happen when there's some "Brigham Young: Quantum Starseed" to read.

“”"”"When will we decide to permit the automation-disenfranchised to share in the wealth created by automation? Are we really supposed to let Darwin sweep the Replaced from the Earth? Is that Moral, Right, Just, Good, or Smart?”"”"”

Darwin didn’t really have a political theory–so that’s a bit incorrect, and a rather anti-scientific criticism (perhaps Xtian as well. RA Wilson would, if sober, probably object to it, if he thought about it). Some social Darwinists do have rightist agendas (like say L-Ron! one of Tex's hero's); but some Darwinists are rather leftist (like SJ Gould--ever read him Tex? Gonna be a bit challenging for someone who thinks Heinlein was the greatest writer and human being who ever lived). And you’ve yet to establish what “morality” consists of, ever (oops--Hume again on fact-value distinction for hints. But language a bit above your L-RonSpeak).

RA Wilson on occasion produced some mildly interesting economic ideas, and we don't disagree with all of them. Most of his economic jazz was from Pound (as in "Ezra," Tex), however, and the social credit school. Pound detested monarchists, American business, "usura", and “zionist finance”. Pray to your favorite Crowleyan daemon that no one quotes the source of RAW's ideas (Pound, and some Italian fascists) on any of yr favorite liberal pillowtalk sites: unless you want some Mommycrats to lay a Nazi badge on ya.

J said...

RA Wilson would call Xtian-Ron, Irrationalist Maximus, a piece of shit. So would Crowley, who however f-ed up and charlatan-like , had a sense of taste. Jefferson would call him an enthusiast, and stupid fuck baptist reactionary. We jus' call him another lil' Texas anti-christ. 'Nuff said.

Macdeath said...

He reminds us of like some John Brown reiteration: the old abolitionist hick-preacher who even Abe Lincoln thought insane. Of course, you know what the old southern boys did with Brown: had him in some tight hemp decorating an oak tree. Heh heh.

Custom Search

Blog Archive