Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
But what about...?
Johann Hari correctly rebuts the tu quoque rhetorical fallacy*:
Hari's rebuttal concerns the "first-level" argument: thus-and-such is bad. He mentions specifically the conditions of de facto slavery in Dubai. Slavery is bad; responding to criticism of slavery by pointing out the critic's own failures is the essence of the tu quoque fallacy.
There are, however, different kinds of arguments where pointing out the critic's own failures is legitimate: specifically when the failure of one system (or culture or ideology) is used as evidence for the superiority of another system.
This issue comes up often discussing communism and socialism. It doesn't seem at all controversial that a shitload of people died* under Stalin's rule of the Soviet Union and under Mao's rule of China. No one — not even the most dedicated Marxist-Leninist-Maoist communist — wants a shitload of people to die. It is equally uncontroversial that we must discover precisely why these people died and make whatever changes reasonably foreseeable to prevent excess deaths.
*excess deaths; i.e. by other causes than old age and other ordinary causes of death
The criticism, however, does not simply stop at noting the specific failure. It goes on: that a shitload of people died under Stalin and Mao is evidence that communism and socialism are failures.
"But what about the shitload of deaths under capitalism?" asks the communist.
"Oh, that's just a tu quoque fallacy," responds the capitalist critic.
Bullshit. The communist is not trying to justify these deaths, he's rebutting the argument that these deaths show the superiority of capitalism over communism.
I know no small few "apologists" for Stalinism and Maoism. There are always a few fringe weirdos, but the overwhelming majority of those who admire Stalin and Mao* do not say, "Oh, those people were bad and deserved to die." They do not say, "Well, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs; their deaths were justified as a sacrifice to implement socialism." To impute such position to admirers is an egregious slander.
*I myself am still mostly agnostic on the issue. Of the two, Mao seems more admirable overall.
The vast majority of admirers hold the position that these deaths are primarily* a combination of a) factors outside the control of these leaders (e.g. droughts, the initial conditions of extreme poverty, the imminent invasion of the Soviet Union by the capitalist west) and b) these leaders' mistakes and errors (e.g. Mao's Great Leap Forward), errors that absolutely should not be repeated.
*There are other contributing factors outside the scope of this particular post but that also deserve detailed critical analysis.
Many self-described communists and socialists hold a similar position to capitalist critics of socialism: that we have no more to learn from Lenin, Stalin and Mao than we have to learn from Hitler: That the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China have no more to do with communism and socialism than Nazi Germany.
The problem with this position is that seems extraordinarily difficult to implement socialism — in the sense of "lower" communism, a transition from capitalism to "higher" communism — without examining both the USSR and the PRC and replicating many, but not all, of their innovations. To simply consider the USSR and PRC "irrelevant" means that we should do nothing at all that they did: that the USSR or PRC did X is prima facie evidence that X is bad.
The most obvious "somethings" that the USSR and PRC have in common are a revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeois state and centralized control of the economy. The facile dismissal of the USSR and PRC is thus used to justify not overthrowing the bourgeois state and not centralizing control of the economy in any way. But abandoning these principles surrenders communism completely to the essence of capitalism: if you're not a revolutionary and an advocate of intelligent economic centralization, you might as well stop dishonestly calling yourself a communist or socialist and join the Green Party.
The first kind of surrender is reformism, that the bourgeois state can be reformed from within, by participating in and upholding the essential structures of the bourgeois state. But these structures are fundamentally and intrinsically instruments of class oppression; they cannot be reformed from within. Even if some progress is made, we know from dismal and bloody experience, such as in Indonesia and the United States, that the bourgeois state will just suppress, imprison or kill the communists. The bourgeoisie has power, and they have read Machiavelli. They will not voluntarily and peacefully give up that power. The bourgeoisie will oppose by force any attempt at undermining their power.
The only justification for "participating" in the bourgeois state is to explicitly and openly oppose it from within, as the Russian communists did with the Duma in the early 20th century. Their delegates used their elected positions not to participate in parlimentarianism, but rather to use their privileged position to call openly for the destruction of the bourgeois state, including the Duma. If you cannot use "participation" in the bourgeois state to directly, openly and explicitly undermine and destroy it, participation is unjustified.
The second surrender, opposing economic centralization, is at best a Utopian fantasy and at worst support for the essence of capitalism: private, individual ownership of capital.
I have been told most emphatically that, "Socialism is the workers owning the means of production." But what does this slogan actually mean? Does it mean each individual worker owns the physical (constant) capital she actually uses? If so, does the worker who owns a lathe in an automobile factory have the right to use that lathe to produce model railroad parts instead of crankshafts? Once you collectivize production above the individual, you are centralizing: the point at which the centralization becomes "unsocialist" in principle is completely arbitrary. And if ownership of physical capital really is individual and private, in what sense is one not upholding the essence of capitalism: the private ownership of capital?
Similarly, ownership is the right to use. If any external restrictions are placed on an individuals use of capital, her ownership is compromised: some ownership accrues to the individual or institution enforcing the restriction. If I cannot transfer an object as I please, rent it as I please, loan it as I please, or even destroy it as I please, I do not fully own it. I own it only to the extent that I can use it as I please. Again, making any restrictions on the use of capital entails some centralization: the point at which the centralization becomes "unsocialist" in principle is completely arbitrary.
Furthermore, centralization happens whether we like it or not. It's hopelessly Utopian to just declare "no centralization" as if by magic. Such a position is fine in a work of fiction, but it ignores the present-day reality of our material circumstances and economic relations. Our only choice is to centralize intelligently and intentionally; the alternative it to simply let centralization happen... and we can see today the effects of centralization without social intention (or with a catastrophically dysfunctional kind of social intention).
How much centralization is best, which decisions should be centralized, is a pragmatic* question, a question to be decided as to what best implements the fundamental principle of "lower" communism: elimination of the exploitation of the surplus value of labor. The only way to intelligently answer this pragmatic question is to critically — but not dismissively — examine those societies that have intentionally centralized their economies at least purportedly for socialist goals. And we have only two examples large enough that their decisions can be considered independent: the USSR and PRC. We do not have to slavishly emulate them, but if we simply dismiss them out of hand, we ignore valuable empirical** evidence and risk slipping into idealism and Utopianism.
*In the broader, all-sided sense of "pragmatism" not restricted to narrow expediency.
**Again, in the broader, all-sided sense of "empiricism" as substantiated by experiment and experience; not restricted to narrow and naive positivism.
As a rhetorical trick, it is simple. Anyone can do it, and we are all tempted sometimes. When you have lost an argument - when you can't justify your case, and it is crumbling in your hands - you snap back: "But what about x?"*h/t to Butterflies and Wheels
Hari's rebuttal concerns the "first-level" argument: thus-and-such is bad. He mentions specifically the conditions of de facto slavery in Dubai. Slavery is bad; responding to criticism of slavery by pointing out the critic's own failures is the essence of the tu quoque fallacy.
There are, however, different kinds of arguments where pointing out the critic's own failures is legitimate: specifically when the failure of one system (or culture or ideology) is used as evidence for the superiority of another system.
This issue comes up often discussing communism and socialism. It doesn't seem at all controversial that a shitload of people died* under Stalin's rule of the Soviet Union and under Mao's rule of China. No one — not even the most dedicated Marxist-Leninist-Maoist communist — wants a shitload of people to die. It is equally uncontroversial that we must discover precisely why these people died and make whatever changes reasonably foreseeable to prevent excess deaths.
*excess deaths; i.e. by other causes than old age and other ordinary causes of death
The criticism, however, does not simply stop at noting the specific failure. It goes on: that a shitload of people died under Stalin and Mao is evidence that communism and socialism are failures.
"But what about the shitload of deaths under capitalism?" asks the communist.
"Oh, that's just a tu quoque fallacy," responds the capitalist critic.
Bullshit. The communist is not trying to justify these deaths, he's rebutting the argument that these deaths show the superiority of capitalism over communism.
I know no small few "apologists" for Stalinism and Maoism. There are always a few fringe weirdos, but the overwhelming majority of those who admire Stalin and Mao* do not say, "Oh, those people were bad and deserved to die." They do not say, "Well, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs; their deaths were justified as a sacrifice to implement socialism." To impute such position to admirers is an egregious slander.
*I myself am still mostly agnostic on the issue. Of the two, Mao seems more admirable overall.
The vast majority of admirers hold the position that these deaths are primarily* a combination of a) factors outside the control of these leaders (e.g. droughts, the initial conditions of extreme poverty, the imminent invasion of the Soviet Union by the capitalist west) and b) these leaders' mistakes and errors (e.g. Mao's Great Leap Forward), errors that absolutely should not be repeated.
*There are other contributing factors outside the scope of this particular post but that also deserve detailed critical analysis.
Many self-described communists and socialists hold a similar position to capitalist critics of socialism: that we have no more to learn from Lenin, Stalin and Mao than we have to learn from Hitler: That the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China have no more to do with communism and socialism than Nazi Germany.
The problem with this position is that seems extraordinarily difficult to implement socialism — in the sense of "lower" communism, a transition from capitalism to "higher" communism — without examining both the USSR and the PRC and replicating many, but not all, of their innovations. To simply consider the USSR and PRC "irrelevant" means that we should do nothing at all that they did: that the USSR or PRC did X is prima facie evidence that X is bad.
The most obvious "somethings" that the USSR and PRC have in common are a revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeois state and centralized control of the economy. The facile dismissal of the USSR and PRC is thus used to justify not overthrowing the bourgeois state and not centralizing control of the economy in any way. But abandoning these principles surrenders communism completely to the essence of capitalism: if you're not a revolutionary and an advocate of intelligent economic centralization, you might as well stop dishonestly calling yourself a communist or socialist and join the Green Party.
The first kind of surrender is reformism, that the bourgeois state can be reformed from within, by participating in and upholding the essential structures of the bourgeois state. But these structures are fundamentally and intrinsically instruments of class oppression; they cannot be reformed from within. Even if some progress is made, we know from dismal and bloody experience, such as in Indonesia and the United States, that the bourgeois state will just suppress, imprison or kill the communists. The bourgeoisie has power, and they have read Machiavelli. They will not voluntarily and peacefully give up that power. The bourgeoisie will oppose by force any attempt at undermining their power.
The only justification for "participating" in the bourgeois state is to explicitly and openly oppose it from within, as the Russian communists did with the Duma in the early 20th century. Their delegates used their elected positions not to participate in parlimentarianism, but rather to use their privileged position to call openly for the destruction of the bourgeois state, including the Duma. If you cannot use "participation" in the bourgeois state to directly, openly and explicitly undermine and destroy it, participation is unjustified.
The second surrender, opposing economic centralization, is at best a Utopian fantasy and at worst support for the essence of capitalism: private, individual ownership of capital.
I have been told most emphatically that, "Socialism is the workers owning the means of production." But what does this slogan actually mean? Does it mean each individual worker owns the physical (constant) capital she actually uses? If so, does the worker who owns a lathe in an automobile factory have the right to use that lathe to produce model railroad parts instead of crankshafts? Once you collectivize production above the individual, you are centralizing: the point at which the centralization becomes "unsocialist" in principle is completely arbitrary. And if ownership of physical capital really is individual and private, in what sense is one not upholding the essence of capitalism: the private ownership of capital?
Similarly, ownership is the right to use. If any external restrictions are placed on an individuals use of capital, her ownership is compromised: some ownership accrues to the individual or institution enforcing the restriction. If I cannot transfer an object as I please, rent it as I please, loan it as I please, or even destroy it as I please, I do not fully own it. I own it only to the extent that I can use it as I please. Again, making any restrictions on the use of capital entails some centralization: the point at which the centralization becomes "unsocialist" in principle is completely arbitrary.
Furthermore, centralization happens whether we like it or not. It's hopelessly Utopian to just declare "no centralization" as if by magic. Such a position is fine in a work of fiction, but it ignores the present-day reality of our material circumstances and economic relations. Our only choice is to centralize intelligently and intentionally; the alternative it to simply let centralization happen... and we can see today the effects of centralization without social intention (or with a catastrophically dysfunctional kind of social intention).
How much centralization is best, which decisions should be centralized, is a pragmatic* question, a question to be decided as to what best implements the fundamental principle of "lower" communism: elimination of the exploitation of the surplus value of labor. The only way to intelligently answer this pragmatic question is to critically — but not dismissively — examine those societies that have intentionally centralized their economies at least purportedly for socialist goals. And we have only two examples large enough that their decisions can be considered independent: the USSR and PRC. We do not have to slavishly emulate them, but if we simply dismiss them out of hand, we ignore valuable empirical** evidence and risk slipping into idealism and Utopianism.
*In the broader, all-sided sense of "pragmatism" not restricted to narrow expediency.
**Again, in the broader, all-sided sense of "empiricism" as substantiated by experiment and experience; not restricted to narrow and naive positivism.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Reductive and contemptuous
And it’s true, Pullman’s treatment of the Church is pretty reductive and contemptuous, since we all know that the Church didn’t really torture and burn witches, or torture and kill ordinary humans whose philosophical and scientific speculations were at odds with the teachings of the Vatican. On the contrary, the Church has always been pretty cool about alternative readings of Scripture, on the grounds that the Bible is an ambiguous and contradictory text that can plausibly be read in any number of ways by honest people working in good faith. About the varieties of human sexual expression, as well, the Church has always been admirably catholic.Michael Bérubé, reviewing His Dark Materials
Monday, April 06, 2009
Pope okays abortion, birth control.
Panicked, Sweat-Covered Pope Reverses Longstanding Ban On Abortion:
[h/t to PZ Myers]
VATICAN CITY—Overturning 2,000 years of religious doctrine, an out-of-breath and visibly flustered Pope Benedict XVI announced Sunday that the termination of unwanted pregnancies was now "completely and perfectly acceptable in the eyes of God." ...
Stunning all in attendance, the head of the Catholic Church announced that contraceptives were, in fact, not a grave evil, and recommended that birth control be used by everyone, even those who claim they are already on it, but as it turns out, are really not.
[h/t to PZ Myers]
Anal beads
Anal beads:
BILLBOARD ads for anal beads have upset Bob McCoskrie, head of New Zealand’s Family First fundie group.
The ad shows a satisfied D.Vice sex shop customer wearing a beatific smile as she enjoys a heavenly anal bead moment in church.
Sunday, April 05, 2009
What is Constructivism?
What is Constructivism?
Very informative. Constructivism (in some sense) appears to be another name for meta-ethical subjective relativism.
1. Our moral discourse is cognitive.
2. Some moral statements are true.
3. Moral statements are true or false in virtue of evaluative attitudes.
Very informative. Constructivism (in some sense) appears to be another name for meta-ethical subjective relativism.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Regional Wars and the Decline of the US Empire
Regional Wars and the Decline of the US Empire:
[h/t to kevin]
All the idols of capitalism over the past three decades crashed. The assumptions and presumptions, paradigm and prognosis of indefinite progress under liberal free market capitalism have been tested and have failed. We are living the end of an entire epoch: Experts everywhere witness the collapse of the US and world financial system, the absence of credit for trade and the lack of financing for investment. A world depression, in which upward of a quarter of the world’s labor force will be unemployed, is looming. The biggest decline in trade in recent world history – down 40% year to year – defines the future. The immanent bankruptcies of the biggest manufacturing companies in the capitalist world haunt Western political leaders. The ‘market’ as a mechanism for allocating resources and the government of the US as the ‘leader’ of the global economy have been discredited. (Financial Times, March 9, 2009) All the assumptions about ‘self-stabilizing markets’ are demonstrably false and outmoded. The rejection of public intervention in the market and the advocacy of supply-side economics have been discredited even in the eyes of their practitioners. Even official circles recognize that ‘inequality of income’ contributed to the onset of the economic crash and should be corrected. Planning, public ownership, nationalization are on the agenda while socialist alternatives have become almost respectable.
[h/t to kevin]
Fear, uncertainty and doubt
J. Pratt Vulpes on fear, uncertainty and doubt:
Imagine a world where children are raised to become agents of change throughout their work and lives, not docile employees, consumers, and followers. One in which corporate personhood has been displaced, and human needs and the environment take precedence over the unlimited quest to maximize profits. A world where every citizen feels confident speaking out and organizing to advance a shared vision of justice.
Imagine that, in this world, health care for all prevails, with no place for insurance company intermediaries or pharmaceutical ad campaigns. Elections are publicly funded and verifiable, and politicians are responsive to the people, not to corporate lobbyists and wealthy donors. Openness is prized, and intellectual property restrictions, proprietary software, and closed ways of doing business have fallen from favor.
Imagine people no longer stirred by religious leaders to restrict the role of women, reject science, and hate or invade their neighbors. People boldly charting their own courses in life according to their values and sense of authenticity, rather than following standard routes laid down by others. People living without fear of scarcity or distrust of difference, confident that together their diverse abilities are ample to meet all their needs.
For ten decades, the industry I now have the privilege of representing has worked tenaciously to protect you from this nightmare scenario.
Gun control
ginandtacos on gun control:
I can think of [no other term than "retard"] to describe someone* who has stood at the front of a giant public university lecture hall packed with 150 sleep-deprived, emotionally unbalanced, substance abusing, clinically depressed, and stressed out 20 year olds and thought, “You know what would make me feel safer? If they all had fucking guns.”*Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)