Japan's success was partly because of tribalism in my view, the clan loyalty or 'ie' being transplanted onto the corporation, leading to a fanatical work ethic but political corruption.
Conservatives view the world as containing hawks and doves - liberals, only doves. This is probably because, as you say, they tend to be subsidised unconditionally. I'm also fascinated by the line that 20th century regimes weren't 'really' socialist; just like asking a Muslim why Islamic societies fail, he'll tell you they aren't Islamic enough. Utopian creeds work by definition, so if they fail in reality they will always say they weren't *real* x-ism.
Great topic and great issue, I think the book to read again is For the New Intellectual. She doesn't talk about the mystics of spirit or of mustle, but of the attilla and the witch doctor and why they both need each other. And why the witch doctore must resort to censorship in order to survive.
"Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries."
@WarVideo "For the new intellectual" is the only one of the regular non-fictional books I haven't read yet (there are also the complete essay collections which might be worth looking into). But the attila / witch doctor relationship is fairly obvious, at least the main point she's likely to be making.
It was very neat to see the history of the last two thousand years as basically two waves of assaults on reason. The second wave (leftism) being more intellectual but at the same time less blatant. Leftism could be described as a genetically evolved strain of Christianity.
About the joking I brought up earlier, I was talking about a few moments in your video, not your video as such.
@AlexanderEBott Two waves plus the constant irrationalism of before ancient greece. I also have a neat theory of why in ancient greece people cleared up to reason for the first time, but that belongs in a video. :)
I enjoyed this a lot. I hope you don't take this as an offense, but you are the perfect vision of what it would be like if a German were to make a joke.
Ayn Rand when she was writing about the differences between the religious and the leftist, was speaking in a different time than us. There weren't as many contradictions as you have presented about the last couple of decades. But I also think she did hint at what you are talking about. Leftist thought is neo-Christianity.
@AlexanderEBott Yes, although I find it odd that Rand didn't see the example of Communism as being thoroughly anti-freedom-of-speech. Clearly she must have seen this. If she really just got carried away with explaning too much with the mind-body-split for the sake of its beauty or something like that, I believe that's a kind of mistake that doesn seem like her. - And thanks for the compliment.
" Yes, although I find it odd that Rand didn't see the example of Communism as being thoroughly anti-freedom-of-speech. "
Quoting Rand:
"The Communists’ chief purpose is to destroy every form of independence—independent work, independent action, independent property, independent thought, an independent mind, or an independent man. Conformity, alikeness, servility, submission and obedience are necessary to establish a Communist slave-state."
@qtutoringhelps Sure she saw that, but I still don't have a decent explanation as for why she took the premises I quoted above. Did she not see liberalism as a mild variant of communism? I find that hard to believe too.
@john42t It would be a mistake to thoroughly separate American Liberalism from Communism, but I just can't remember whether she made that mistake. Did she forget to attack the left's facade of being pro-free-speech?
@AlexanderEBott Well, in this context she took the premise that being a mystic-of-muscle means being pro-freedom-of-speech. But the Commies are mystics-of-muscle, right? So how does that work?
The liberals are not defenders of free speech, just as the cons. are not really defenders of capitalism--of true liberty, in either mind or body--but rather the liberals want the state to control the body rather than the mind; they are Marxian materialists. Of course, the Commies are just the very extreme version--and since mind and body are not separate but unified, in reality, the Commies, in order to obtain control of man's body, ascertain that they need to control mind, too.
@john42t Qtutoringhelps brought an excellent quote of hers. I think she meant that mystics of muscle had a tendency as a contradiction in their ideology to be more friendly to freedom of the intellect. But with any contradiction, reality will, over the course of time, correct it to fit with one's ideological framework. That is why communism led to where we saw it in Russia (lack of freedom for the intellect).
@AlexanderEBott Yes, excellet! This is the right way to look at it. I was misled by grouping both commies and liberals under "mystics of muscle" in my head. Right, they have a tendency to control the body first. And indeed religions have tendency to control the mind first - Islam isn't remotely as anti-capitalist as it is anti-heresy. Very good.
They are "mystics" in the sense that they have a wrong apprehension of reality--their basic premises are literally disconnected from actual reality, that's why the totalitarians quickly ascertain that you need to control both mind and body--the extreme examples of the "Mystics of Spirit," say in Islamic fundamentalist countries today or in Christian Europe at the height of the middle ages, *are* totalitarians as well, and for the same basic reason--man is integrated...
@qtutoringhelps See my oddly spelled response to AlexanderEBott. This is the way to resolve the contradiction I saw. Probably no one else saw it to begin with, I just grouped liberals and commies together in my head quite too strongly.
I'm not sure where you are getting the notion that Rand though out-and-out Communist totalitarians were supporters of freedom of speech. Every single communist experiment I know of resulted in the outlawing of free speech--on the alleged grounds, of course, that it was only temporary and only so that the proper decisions could be made without disruption and needless conflict.
John, think of China today. It's a one-party rule, the outgrowth of a Marxist revolution (with Chinese idiosyncrasies). No legal freedom of speech--this also has to do with the fact that China has 5,000 years of powerful centralized statism --but they have some free markets operating there on pragmatic grounds. Can you say the Chinese are really for freedom in mind or body? Of course not, because they see that the more freedom you give people, the more the rulers are threatened.
@qtutoringhelps I agree with the former points (see my last comment), but I have a different view on China. In particular, I think their pragmatic reasons to allow for capitalism contains the seed to their way to freedom. Because it works both ways: You can also unleash the body and the mind will become free.
Hmm, I'd be interested to hear your views on China. Since visiting my wife's family in China in 2005, I've sporadically studied the culture and history of mainland China for short bursts (while also trying to learn to speak Mandarin). I don't think China will be the next beacon of freedom after the death of America, but who knows, one can never predict the future with much accuracy.
@qtutoringhelps My view on China is limited, but there are a number of things that make me optimistic: The KP's power base appears to be, as far as I can tell, not an irrational ideology but a growing number of people who benefit from capitalism. If that's the case, that path should be self-supporting. There's a German intellectual, Scholl-Latour who lamented on his journey to China that the forbidden city looked so holy amid the poor Peking and now you have all sorts of [...]
@qtutoringhelps [...] Western profanities like fast-food and people in excentric dresses. A statement like that makes me think of a civilisation rising out of superstition into a healthy capitalism. Another point is that most intellectual oppression goes against leftist. Even the Communist past appears not to be a taboo any longer. This strikes me as very promising. Anyway, you'll be able to tell much more than me about how the climate has changed if your wife's family lives [...]
@qtutoringhelps [...] there. They are Chinese I presume? Did they live through Mao? Anyway, I'm extremely optimistic for America (and the world). I believe I have enough theory together to predict that freedom will win with certainty and very soon - I explain that during the course of future videos. Of course one can never be 100% percent sure. The Western World and America in particular will change first. The internet is the key, the media bias is going to change into its opposite.
Yes, under Mao, her grandparents were sent to "reeducation camps" which involved mass shaming, forced labour, and many other horribly coercive and psychologically damaging procedures. Her father still has portraits of Mao up around the home.
The problem with the contemporary (new) generation of Chinese people, and I talked to many of them, is they have no political opinions, or at least they don't/won't express them. They are apolitical...
Mainland Chinese people do not seem to mind restrictions on speaking out freely against the government insofar as their economic needs are satisfied and then some. Apart from this bizarre a-political-ity, corruption is pervasive and widely tolerated; one is seen as 'naive'/'silly' if you do not accept evil as a necessary means to 'get ahead' in life.
There's also a strong familism embedded deeply in Chinese culture that persists through adulthood and I think is crucial to state power.
@qtutoringhelps Yes, those two factors go against freedom. I just believe that egoism eventually deals with them. Even today, the armies of workers who came from the land to the cities abandoned their families I presume? This is going to rip old traditions to shreds. And as long as winning is everything, the less corrupt bureaucrat will get ahead. It's just important that winning is everything, that is: That there is no irrational ideology.
You are directly bonded to your immediate (parents) family and perhaps to a lesser extent your extended family, but nationalism is very strong there and the state is viewed as an extension of the family.
Just curious: Have you read Rand's fiction with an eye to her characters and how those characters represent or clash with her philosophy? (I ask because you say you're not convinced of her premise, and I would suggest reading her fiction for concrete examples.)
@qtutoringhelps I'm familiar with her fiction. Which premise do you mean? I meant the premise that being pro-freedom-of-speech is a property of the liberals, which I believe to be wrong (eg Communism/political correctness), and the premise of being pro-free-markets is a property of the religious, which I believe to be wrong (eg Islam/Popes). It's only the *American* liberals and Christians *of Rand's time* for which those two premises are rather valid. I hope I wasn't too ambiguous here.
While liberals share roots and common premises with communist totalitarians, they are distinguished from them on a few grounds. For one, liberals are self-professed "moderates"--they would never go so far to endorse totally abolishing profit or the whole market economy; they seek to retain the benefits of capitalism but they promote ever-encroaching welfare statism; they are mixed-economy pragmatists.
Great video John. It is videos like this that remind me why I subscribed to you in the first place. Very thought provoking. I can't wait for the next video in this series. :-)
This has been flagged as spam show
I mean this very sincerely, that this is one of the best videos I have yet watched on YouTube. I look forward to your next instalment.
dawgg981 3 months ago
Comment removed
dawgg981 3 months ago
Japan's success was partly because of tribalism in my view, the clan loyalty or 'ie' being transplanted onto the corporation, leading to a fanatical work ethic but political corruption.
mrarcher857 4 months ago
Conservatives view the world as containing hawks and doves - liberals, only doves. This is probably because, as you say, they tend to be subsidised unconditionally. I'm also fascinated by the line that 20th century regimes weren't 'really' socialist; just like asking a Muslim why Islamic societies fail, he'll tell you they aren't Islamic enough. Utopian creeds work by definition, so if they fail in reality they will always say they weren't *real* x-ism.
Max Weber, is he your intellectual?
mrarcher857 4 months ago
@mrarcher857 Yes!
john42t 4 months ago
Great topic and great issue, I think the book to read again is For the New Intellectual. She doesn't talk about the mystics of spirit or of mustle, but of the attilla and the witch doctor and why they both need each other. And why the witch doctore must resort to censorship in order to survive.
"Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries."
WarVideo 4 months ago
@WarVideo "For the new intellectual" is the only one of the regular non-fictional books I haven't read yet (there are also the complete essay collections which might be worth looking into). But the attila / witch doctor relationship is fairly obvious, at least the main point she's likely to be making.
john42t 4 months ago
It was very neat to see the history of the last two thousand years as basically two waves of assaults on reason. The second wave (leftism) being more intellectual but at the same time less blatant. Leftism could be described as a genetically evolved strain of Christianity.
About the joking I brought up earlier, I was talking about a few moments in your video, not your video as such.
AlexanderEBott 4 months ago
@AlexanderEBott Two waves plus the constant irrationalism of before ancient greece. I also have a neat theory of why in ancient greece people cleared up to reason for the first time, but that belongs in a video. :)
john42t 4 months ago
I enjoyed this a lot. I hope you don't take this as an offense, but you are the perfect vision of what it would be like if a German were to make a joke.
Ayn Rand when she was writing about the differences between the religious and the leftist, was speaking in a different time than us. There weren't as many contradictions as you have presented about the last couple of decades. But I also think she did hint at what you are talking about. Leftist thought is neo-Christianity.
AlexanderEBott 4 months ago
@AlexanderEBott Yes, although I find it odd that Rand didn't see the example of Communism as being thoroughly anti-freedom-of-speech. Clearly she must have seen this. If she really just got carried away with explaning too much with the mind-body-split for the sake of its beauty or something like that, I believe that's a kind of mistake that doesn seem like her. - And thanks for the compliment.
john42t 4 months ago
@john42t
" Yes, although I find it odd that Rand didn't see the example of Communism as being thoroughly anti-freedom-of-speech. "
Quoting Rand:
"The Communists’ chief purpose is to destroy every form of independence—independent work, independent action, independent property, independent thought, an independent mind, or an independent man. Conformity, alikeness, servility, submission and obedience are necessary to establish a Communist slave-state."
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@qtutoringhelps This is what I was trying to remember from her.
AlexanderEBott 4 months ago
@qtutoringhelps Sure she saw that, but I still don't have a decent explanation as for why she took the premises I quoted above. Did she not see liberalism as a mild variant of communism? I find that hard to believe too.
john42t 4 months ago
@john42t
In a sense, yes, "liberalism" (American leftism) is mild form of Marxism.
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@john42t It would be a mistake to thoroughly separate American Liberalism from Communism, but I just can't remember whether she made that mistake. Did she forget to attack the left's facade of being pro-free-speech?
AlexanderEBott 4 months ago
@AlexanderEBott Well, in this context she took the premise that being a mystic-of-muscle means being pro-freedom-of-speech. But the Commies are mystics-of-muscle, right? So how does that work?
john42t 4 months ago
@john42t
The liberals are not defenders of free speech, just as the cons. are not really defenders of capitalism--of true liberty, in either mind or body--but rather the liberals want the state to control the body rather than the mind; they are Marxian materialists. Of course, the Commies are just the very extreme version--and since mind and body are not separate but unified, in reality, the Commies, in order to obtain control of man's body, ascertain that they need to control mind, too.
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@john42t Qtutoringhelps brought an excellent quote of hers. I think she meant that mystics of muscle had a tendency as a contradiction in their ideology to be more friendly to freedom of the intellect. But with any contradiction, reality will, over the course of time, correct it to fit with one's ideological framework. That is why communism led to where we saw it in Russia (lack of freedom for the intellect).
AlexanderEBott 4 months ago
@AlexanderEBott Yes, excellet! This is the right way to look at it. I was misled by grouping both commies and liberals under "mystics of muscle" in my head. Right, they have a tendency to control the body first. And indeed religions have tendency to control the mind first - Islam isn't remotely as anti-capitalist as it is anti-heresy. Very good.
john42t 4 months ago
@john42t
They are "mystics" in the sense that they have a wrong apprehension of reality--their basic premises are literally disconnected from actual reality, that's why the totalitarians quickly ascertain that you need to control both mind and body--the extreme examples of the "Mystics of Spirit," say in Islamic fundamentalist countries today or in Christian Europe at the height of the middle ages, *are* totalitarians as well, and for the same basic reason--man is integrated...
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@qtutoringhelps See my oddly spelled response to AlexanderEBott. This is the way to resolve the contradiction I saw. Probably no one else saw it to begin with, I just grouped liberals and commies together in my head quite too strongly.
john42t 4 months ago
@john42t
I'm not sure where you are getting the notion that Rand though out-and-out Communist totalitarians were supporters of freedom of speech. Every single communist experiment I know of resulted in the outlawing of free speech--on the alleged grounds, of course, that it was only temporary and only so that the proper decisions could be made without disruption and needless conflict.
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@john42t
John, think of China today. It's a one-party rule, the outgrowth of a Marxist revolution (with Chinese idiosyncrasies). No legal freedom of speech--this also has to do with the fact that China has 5,000 years of powerful centralized statism --but they have some free markets operating there on pragmatic grounds. Can you say the Chinese are really for freedom in mind or body? Of course not, because they see that the more freedom you give people, the more the rulers are threatened.
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@qtutoringhelps I agree with the former points (see my last comment), but I have a different view on China. In particular, I think their pragmatic reasons to allow for capitalism contains the seed to their way to freedom. Because it works both ways: You can also unleash the body and the mind will become free.
john42t 4 months ago
@john42t
Hmm, I'd be interested to hear your views on China. Since visiting my wife's family in China in 2005, I've sporadically studied the culture and history of mainland China for short bursts (while also trying to learn to speak Mandarin). I don't think China will be the next beacon of freedom after the death of America, but who knows, one can never predict the future with much accuracy.
I liked this video in any case!
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@qtutoringhelps My view on China is limited, but there are a number of things that make me optimistic: The KP's power base appears to be, as far as I can tell, not an irrational ideology but a growing number of people who benefit from capitalism. If that's the case, that path should be self-supporting. There's a German intellectual, Scholl-Latour who lamented on his journey to China that the forbidden city looked so holy amid the poor Peking and now you have all sorts of [...]
john42t 4 months ago
@qtutoringhelps [...] Western profanities like fast-food and people in excentric dresses. A statement like that makes me think of a civilisation rising out of superstition into a healthy capitalism. Another point is that most intellectual oppression goes against leftist. Even the Communist past appears not to be a taboo any longer. This strikes me as very promising. Anyway, you'll be able to tell much more than me about how the climate has changed if your wife's family lives [...]
john42t 4 months ago
@qtutoringhelps [...] there. They are Chinese I presume? Did they live through Mao? Anyway, I'm extremely optimistic for America (and the world). I believe I have enough theory together to predict that freedom will win with certainty and very soon - I explain that during the course of future videos. Of course one can never be 100% percent sure. The Western World and America in particular will change first. The internet is the key, the media bias is going to change into its opposite.
john42t 4 months ago
@john42t
"Did they live through Mao?"
Yes, under Mao, her grandparents were sent to "reeducation camps" which involved mass shaming, forced labour, and many other horribly coercive and psychologically damaging procedures. Her father still has portraits of Mao up around the home.
The problem with the contemporary (new) generation of Chinese people, and I talked to many of them, is they have no political opinions, or at least they don't/won't express them. They are apolitical...
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@john42t
Mainland Chinese people do not seem to mind restrictions on speaking out freely against the government insofar as their economic needs are satisfied and then some. Apart from this bizarre a-political-ity, corruption is pervasive and widely tolerated; one is seen as 'naive'/'silly' if you do not accept evil as a necessary means to 'get ahead' in life.
There's also a strong familism embedded deeply in Chinese culture that persists through adulthood and I think is crucial to state power.
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@qtutoringhelps Yes, those two factors go against freedom. I just believe that egoism eventually deals with them. Even today, the armies of workers who came from the land to the cities abandoned their families I presume? This is going to rip old traditions to shreds. And as long as winning is everything, the less corrupt bureaucrat will get ahead. It's just important that winning is everything, that is: That there is no irrational ideology.
john42t 4 months ago
@qtutoringhelps By the way, the famility bondage, is this to small families or large clans?
john42t 4 months ago
@john42t
"... is this to small families or large clans?"
You are directly bonded to your immediate (parents) family and perhaps to a lesser extent your extended family, but nationalism is very strong there and the state is viewed as an extension of the family.
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
Just curious: Have you read Rand's fiction with an eye to her characters and how those characters represent or clash with her philosophy? (I ask because you say you're not convinced of her premise, and I would suggest reading her fiction for concrete examples.)
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@qtutoringhelps I'm familiar with her fiction. Which premise do you mean? I meant the premise that being pro-freedom-of-speech is a property of the liberals, which I believe to be wrong (eg Communism/political correctness), and the premise of being pro-free-markets is a property of the religious, which I believe to be wrong (eg Islam/Popes). It's only the *American* liberals and Christians *of Rand's time* for which those two premises are rather valid. I hope I wasn't too ambiguous here.
john42t 4 months ago
@john42t Yes exactly, "of Rand's time". Things have changed.
AlexanderEBott 4 months ago
@john42t
While liberals share roots and common premises with communist totalitarians, they are distinguished from them on a few grounds. For one, liberals are self-professed "moderates"--they would never go so far to endorse totally abolishing profit or the whole market economy; they seek to retain the benefits of capitalism but they promote ever-encroaching welfare statism; they are mixed-economy pragmatists.
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
Great video John. It is videos like this that remind me why I subscribed to you in the first place. Very thought provoking. I can't wait for the next video in this series. :-)
Hiro139 4 months ago
@Hiro139 Thank you very much. I'll probably take some time and talk about some other things first. Don't know for sure yet though.
john42t 4 months ago