Well the effect of anarchism is a leveling of the social order, and an equal leveling in terms of rights at that. Anarchism could not possibly occur without such a change. Since the statist social order consists of a certain band of men laying claim to and exercising special rights above everyone else, this cannot be gotten rid of without having a “leveling”, in effect.
There is nothing wrong with “leveling” per se if one takes context into account. To the extent that the political class remains in place or threatens to return once it is initially done away with, you’re damn right that it’s a permanent process that requires vigilance, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. The only alternative is basically asequiescance to the existing order.
As for “sexual deviants” and “unassimilable ethnic minorites” (cough a self-fullfiling prophecy if I’ve ever heard one cough) being on the short end of the stick in current society, in current society such things are the effect of political coercion to quite a notable extent. If you are convinced that everyone is truly equal under the law or has their negative rights consistantly respected regaurdless of group identity in the present, I believe that you’re extremely mistaken.
And by proposals for meaningful change I wasn’t talking about government policies, just a mere desire for pluralism and inclusiveness if anything. I don’t see how things like affirmative action logically follow from that at all. I’m talking about, at minimum, the mere desire for more inclusiveness and pluralism - which conservatives shoot down immediately in the name of a false sense of realism.
I suppose the question that this seems to boil down to is: are currently existing markets truly meritocratic? I think not. Do the “natural” merits of people from various group identities inherently have a huge (and by huge I mean huge) gap between them by the very nature of such groups? I think not. Is it true that some people just happen to be 1,000,000 times more productive than everyone else? That’s a stretch, and it most certainly cannot be reasonably applied to entire group identities. Is “nature” and evolution truly purely meritocratic to begin with? Not really, as nature is full of unpredictable circumstances despite having some meritocratic elements to it. Is absolute homogeneity “natural”? I don’t think it is, as I see nature as quite complex and plural, and perhaps most importantly, dynamic.
I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to portray all existing inequalities as “natural” or meritocratic, nor do I think that pure homogeneity can possibly be the natural result of strictly voluntary choices. I don’t think there is such thing as a unicultural society, so long as there is the individual and the individual is not identical to others. An interesting paradox perhaps: internal to the homogenous society envisioned by the conservatives, the order is actually kind of egalitarian in that everyone is supposed to be culturally, ethnically or religiously identical. But such an egalitarianism is not realistic or sustainable at all. Viewed on a larger scale, the identical-ness is broken down further, as each respective allegedly homogenous group varies from the other. The idea that you can hermetically seal entire societies from eachother in the modern age is actually utopian. Societies don’t exist in a vacuum, they are inevitably interconnected to some degree and hence the distinction between them is somewhat questionable.
If I have erred in my conception of racism could you provide an alternative definition? My main point in my post was to say that what most people consider to be racism is actually cultural preference.
I’ve yet to see a moral argument as to why preferring to associate with those of one’s own kind is wrong or immoral, and I see no reason to believe these are little else than mere preferences.
That’s because it’s not a moral argument, it’s a simple matter of logic, practicality and productivity. Yes, in and of itself nativism and racism is just a preferance, but this does not mean that noone should critisize such preferances on rational grounds nor does it mean that they are entirely harmless preferances that never manifest themselves politically or through force. It is not logical or productive to go out of one’s way to disassociate from everyone from a particular cultural group when some of those people can benefit you and they realistically present no real threat to you. It is not logical to desire a purely homogenous society, nor is it truly possible or sustainable to actually have an entirely homogenous society. In the modern age, someone who desires “pure” communities in “the west” is essentially SOL, even in a free society without discrimination laws.
Truly, taken as an absolute, this preferance is extremely illogical and counterproductive to one’s own well-being for that matter. If I go to the store and it happens to be owned by arabs, I could really care less so long as I get my candy bar. If I were to attempt to live a purely homogenous life, especially in America, I would soon find myself denying all sorts of oppurtunities to myself simply because the people I would have otherwise interacted with were from different cultural backgrounds than myself. I am shooting myself in the foot if I turn down swaths of customers because of their cultural backgrounds, or if I refuse to hire perfectly qualified and even brilliant individuals simply because of their cultural backgrounds. If I’m in competition with more inclusive people, it’s a big loss on my part. The whole thing amounts to a great big denial of the benefits of social cooperation to oneself.
In truth, the desire to only associate with “one’s own kind”, especially in the modern world and at least outside of the castle one’s own home, is absolutely futile and foolish. In essence, as soon as one walks out of one’s home, one is going to be interacting at least subtley with people not of “one’s own kind”. Unless one wishes to lock oneself up in one’s home for their whole lives, the whole thing is downright silly. And taking into account the inevitable dynamic process of people traveling from territory to territory and people selling homes to willing buyers, the desire for mass immigration restriction is ultimately futile. As soon as a single individual in the community willingly hires or sells a home to or allows a “wetback” on their property, the nativist is SOL unless they want to apply legal force (which they often do).
I see no harm in critisizing ignorance and impracticality, which is what these groupisms amount to.
Of course it’s a cultural preferance. An ignorant and utopian one. In either case, the fact that it’s a cultural preferance does not mean that noone will try to initiate force or apply the law to enforce such a cultural preferance, as historically has been the case only until very recently. It is only very recently that racism can be considered, at least in some respect, nothing more than a cultural preferance. It was literally the law of the land and a policy for government claimed property (note: the state doesn’t have a right to discriminate) up until a few decades ago basically, and in some ways it still is.
Actually, I do not see why that is so. In the case of trade, it can occur at a distance, or in particular areas focused on facilitating it (like cities used to be.) So, trade with others need not decline at all. Moreover, regarding the case of hiring only individuals say of one race, well that will simply depend on how willing the owner is to gain less monetarily. If he sees those of his own race as extended family, say, and takes pleasure in seeing them benefit it is no more irrational than extending this behaviour to those of one’s own family. You may not like this, and I am sure some Randians hate it, that someone isn’t utterly focused on the pursuit of profit, but so what? Yes, most people will in all likelihood will prefer greater pecuniary profits, but I see this rabid obsession with “racism” as pointless. When all the costs of free association fall on individuals, the patterns that form will change, and there is no reason to simply assume it will be impossible to maintain relatively homogeneous areas of habitation.
Unless you subscribe to an objective value theory, I don’t think you can really make that statement. Some people could indeed value homogenity more than material wealth. Therefore the subjective well-being is best promoted by racist actions.
What the government did in past or today is irrelevant. If it is at root a cultural preference why is couched in biological terminology? So to avoid confusion and the baggage associated with “racism” I challenge you to rename it something more precise and less pejorative.
What’s judeo-christian morality ? Does it include blind obedience to parents ? Stoning to death of ‘sexual deviants’ ? The inquisition ? Witch hunting ? Holy wars ? etc ? etc ? etc ?
The irony of your post count makes me laugh…(it is 666 for the people in the future who see a different one). Although the ones you listed are true events in Christian history, Jesus himself seemed to be a kind of pacifist. To be honest I wouldn’t mind living in a world with more pacifists even though I am not one.
So do you think that the well-being of a serial killer is best promoted by killing? Values are objective in one sense (in that they are based in reality and are valuable to humans becaues of their use for surivival and flourishing), and subjective in another (in that they are individualized and specific). Agent-relative is an overall better term for value.
I’d just like to point out that this is an incomplete view. To consume, one must first produce. Thus, to consume, one must first subject himself to the discipline of other consumers. Basically…Say’s Law - demand is expressed by supply. The ultimate power is choice. One can choose what one produces and what one consumes. Control is an illusion.
For better understanding the text I repeat what Brainpolice quoted:
I actually agree with Byzantine, but Brainpolice raises a few good points as well…
Not with necessity. Honestly I would say that most people supporting these causes do only have a clue on what Marxism and/or cultural Marxism is. These are usually emotionally rather unstable individuals that joined a cause celeb. Often it’s only a phase. There character traits are rarely malevolence, sometimes resentments and all of the time impressionability and suggestibility. In short they meet the profile of the useful idiot quite well. This however doesn’t mean that there were/are active Marxists running the show in these “new social movements” in many ways. They followed the ideas of the Frankfurter Schule or the Gramscian model, hence these cultural activists were often well educated and motivated, which gave them an edge of influence inside these social movements.
The aim of the cultural Marxists wasn’t to turn everyone in a Marxist; the aim was rather to destroy any hegemony of ideas that may work contrary to Marxist goals. The goal was to disable social and intellectual defense mechanism by corroding norms and non government controlled social structures. They managed it well, given that people in the Western world are more dependent on the state and it’s larger institutions then ever before.
What do you mean, why would he call them Marxists - Which is btw. not a crime (accuse).
There are certainly older traditions involved in this then Marxism. With liberation theology we may find a good example of Cultural Marxist causes successfully infiltrating an institution older then 1000 years. I’m not sure why you bring the issue of pluralism up.
As said, one doesn’t have to be a cultural Marxist, but it is interesting how the ideas favored by the proponents of the Frankfurter Schule have found their way to intellectual hegemony during the last decades.
The serial killer’s interest is NOT promoted by killing, unless all morality is subjective and whim-based, which I think very few people on this forum would be willing to argue.