Benny_
Elementary Penguin
How can you post this tripe and expect it to be taken seriously. Really, how?blog said:
-
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
In response to Comrade Nathan. "Leftist Motivations" (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Not-That-Bright
- Start date
- Status
Comrade nathan
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2004
- Messages
- 1,170
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2004
I think it would be a good idea to see the pyschology behind politics.
I think that after the subjects are more knowledgable in their chosen wing of politics there would be less similiarities in pyschological paterns.
I think that after the subjects are more knowledgable in their chosen wing of politics there would be less similiarities in pyschological paterns.
loquasagacious
NCAP Mooderator
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 3,636
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2004
The problem is that whilst the writer has studied psych and economics he has not studied politics.
So essentially he is a trained pyschologist attempting to use his knowledge to justify his personal feelings and biases. In allegorical terms he is attempting to define a walnut without knowing anything about its shell. He is only accredited in half of what he is writing about.
Even the short excerpt clearly shows this as he overlooks basic definitions used to discribe poltics. There are four categories into which anyone can fall; radical, progressive, conservative and regressive. They are broadly speaking; believe that society must be torn down and built anew, believe that society is fundamentally good but needs some reforms, believe that everything is just about right, believe that society has gone to far and must return to old practices. In short radicals support drastic change, progressives support some change, conservatives resist all change and reactionaries want to roll back previous changes.
Various political ideologies can fit anywhere in this spectrum and indeed they naturally shift with time. For example when communism first appeared in Russia it was a radical philosophy and (for a brief period) co-existed with moderate elements. When they reached power they radically chnaged society, however having done so they then resisted all chnage becoming conservative. Now as communism in Russia has fallen communists in Russia (especially old ones) are reactionary.
Ideologies cut across society vertically and are constants however radical/progressive/conservative/reactionary definitions cut across society horizontally and are not constant they are defined by the society in which they exist (as such varying with both time and space).
In this way communism can be radical, progressive, conserative and reactionary all at the same time but in different places eg communism is now radical in the US, progressive(yes stretching the term abit) in socialist states (eg sweden again a slight stretch), conservative in China and reactionary in Russia. People and movements are united across borders not by their status in society r/p/c/r but by the ideology they espouse.
So basically the author is trying to deniggerate left-wing (by which he actually means social-libetarians) by writing a critique of the psychological makeup of progressives.
So essentially he is a trained pyschologist attempting to use his knowledge to justify his personal feelings and biases. In allegorical terms he is attempting to define a walnut without knowing anything about its shell. He is only accredited in half of what he is writing about.
Even the short excerpt clearly shows this as he overlooks basic definitions used to discribe poltics. There are four categories into which anyone can fall; radical, progressive, conservative and regressive. They are broadly speaking; believe that society must be torn down and built anew, believe that society is fundamentally good but needs some reforms, believe that everything is just about right, believe that society has gone to far and must return to old practices. In short radicals support drastic change, progressives support some change, conservatives resist all change and reactionaries want to roll back previous changes.
Various political ideologies can fit anywhere in this spectrum and indeed they naturally shift with time. For example when communism first appeared in Russia it was a radical philosophy and (for a brief period) co-existed with moderate elements. When they reached power they radically chnaged society, however having done so they then resisted all chnage becoming conservative. Now as communism in Russia has fallen communists in Russia (especially old ones) are reactionary.
Ideologies cut across society vertically and are constants however radical/progressive/conservative/reactionary definitions cut across society horizontally and are not constant they are defined by the society in which they exist (as such varying with both time and space).
In this way communism can be radical, progressive, conserative and reactionary all at the same time but in different places eg communism is now radical in the US, progressive(yes stretching the term abit) in socialist states (eg sweden again a slight stretch), conservative in China and reactionary in Russia. People and movements are united across borders not by their status in society r/p/c/r but by the ideology they espouse.
So basically the author is trying to deniggerate left-wing (by which he actually means social-libetarians) by writing a critique of the psychological makeup of progressives.
leetom
there's too many of them!
The guy mentions something about leftists being the way they are because they seek personal glory and enjoy the limelight.
IMO, the author has an ingrained authoritarianism. Lefitism (and indeed Rightism) is born when people challange established policy. People challenge policy because they are concerned for thier society and the effect different policy has/ will have on their society. They do not do so for personal glory or recognition. By accusing people who question the order of things as people who seek personal glory and ejoyers of limelight, the author is not just bagging the left, but democracy itself.
Someone could take his argument, replace the words 'left' and 'leftism' with 'right' and 'rightism' and just as easily argue the reasons for the existence of rightists.
IMO, the author has an ingrained authoritarianism. Lefitism (and indeed Rightism) is born when people challange established policy. People challenge policy because they are concerned for thier society and the effect different policy has/ will have on their society. They do not do so for personal glory or recognition. By accusing people who question the order of things as people who seek personal glory and ejoyers of limelight, the author is not just bagging the left, but democracy itself.
Someone could take his argument, replace the words 'left' and 'leftism' with 'right' and 'rightism' and just as easily argue the reasons for the existence of rightists.
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
He's talking more about collectivism and getting together to stage mass protests, why you can find leftists running around the uni denouncing the howard government like crazy, why my leftist lecturer felt it would be important to jump up on top of his table and start dancing during the middle of a demonstration.leetom said:
The right generally doesn't protest ( I guess the christian right is an exception ), demonstrate or whatever.
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
Because he's a crazy person is my only explanation.
spell check
Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2004
- Messages
- 842
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 1998
if by study you mean, point out that leftists are compassionate and want change, and then conclude that this gives them a warm inner glow therefore they were neglected as children?Not-That-Bright said:
very scientific, how exactly do you measure a warm inner glow?
I have to agree with addymac, the man is only qualified for half of the material he is referring to. The rest is obviously derived from his own personal values and biases in conjunction with his psychology related credentials....
However, that essentially raises one of the key driving forces behind any persons inclination towards the opposing ends of the political spectrum. The values to which their upbringing pertained can, as is evident, be a more influential factor than the psychological elements that are supposedly aligned with each political view...
...There are many 'right-wingers' who pertain to the apparent 'leftist' pyschological existence and vice-verser...
How can you conveniently categorise people into such neat and tidy groups? This is where psychology is flawed...The individuals environment is an extremely vital determinant. Everyone is brought up differently, and it is these familial relationships/values in CONJUNCTION with one's psychological make up will affect their political leanings among other personal attributes. A presumption that people are associated with certain ideas and motivations based purely upon their 'supposed' psychological make-up is rather narrow-minded...
However, that essentially raises one of the key driving forces behind any persons inclination towards the opposing ends of the political spectrum. The values to which their upbringing pertained can, as is evident, be a more influential factor than the psychological elements that are supposedly aligned with each political view...
...There are many 'right-wingers' who pertain to the apparent 'leftist' pyschological existence and vice-verser...
How can you conveniently categorise people into such neat and tidy groups? This is where psychology is flawed...The individuals environment is an extremely vital determinant. Everyone is brought up differently, and it is these familial relationships/values in CONJUNCTION with one's psychological make up will affect their political leanings among other personal attributes. A presumption that people are associated with certain ideas and motivations based purely upon their 'supposed' psychological make-up is rather narrow-minded...
Comrade nathan
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2004
- Messages
- 1,170
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2004
There are still objective material conditions that are common in people.
Such things as Class, race, geography, education etc.
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
He does of course mention that this is only an account of a small fragment of the group, and that there are many variations, however you have to come up with SOME type of model.
walrusbear
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Messages
- 2,261
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2003
a trite one?Not-That-Bright said:
Rorix
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2003
- Messages
- 1,818
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
NTB i don't know why you're complaining about people dismissing things out of hand, it seems that 90% of the members on this forum (on both sides) do so until one of the more contributing members comes along and says something intelligent which then gets comments like "well said" or "i agree with X". By then the thread is about 3 pages long and tends to degrade into a discussion between the thread starter and possibly one other party v 2-3 dissenting parties. If this discussion actually continues past page 10 or happens to be of a controversial nature other parties all jump in and the thread gets posted in by randoms when the last post was over 4 months ago and the original parties wonder why they bothered to contribute to the thread in the first place.
Regarding the actual article I found the Unabomber Manifesto to be a more coherant account of general leftism.
Regarding the actual article I found the Unabomber Manifesto to be a more coherant account of general leftism.
spell check
Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2004
- Messages
- 842
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 1998
coherent..Rorix said:
K
katie_tully
Guest
Do I read that, or do I spare myself.
hiphophorray123
Banned
FuCk ThA WrIghT, ComMuNiSt ManIfEzTo 4 LyFe!!!!1!!!
- Status