[ExI] The Evils of the West
lcorbin at rawbw.com
Wed Apr 15 23:22:24 UTC 2009
> --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
>> Yes, self-criticism in pretty Western all right,
>> but on the other hand, surely no one elevated
>> self-criticism to the heights advocated by Mao.
>> Every neighborhood cell in his reign had to
>> undergo extremely intense "self-criticism
>> sessions" in which anyone at all, IIRC, could
>> be accused of being insufficiently Red or
>> insufficiently obedient to the path Mao laid down.
> Mao was a disciple of what Western ideology?
Fellow by the name of K. Marx. Used to be really
big in the Comintern circles. You've probably heard
Actually, here I was saying "but on the other hand"
there was even more severe "self-criticism" than
anything anticipated in the west.
> Also, these self-criticism sessions are not
> really like the signature trait of Western
> self-critical attitude. The former is merely
> following an external model -- specifically,
> conforming to a totalitarian ideology --
> that's the hallmark of cult behavior the world over.
> It's not really, to that extent, self-criticism.
> It's function is social: conformity to the community
> however defined. The latter is usually toxic to
> that kind of conformity. Don't you agree?
>> No, what I meant by the Western institutions that "deliver
>> the goods" was free-market capitalism, rule of law, and
>> very high regard for private property. Well---at least
>> we *used* to highly regard all three...
> I would agree with these Western institutions.
> They would, however, in my mind, not go along
> with some of the proposals made by some here
> about treating certain individuals merely because
> of their religious beliefs and not because of
> some particular actions they've actually taken
> (remember that quaint view of "innocent until
> proven guilty" and also of matters of law
> dealing with actions and NOT beliefs?).
Right. The extreme actions being suggested by
"some people" here, such as expulsions of
dangerous minorities, would in effect "rise
above principle". But, as was argued, sometimes
in history that seems to be the right thing to
do (e.g. what Lincoln had to do to win, what
FDR was afraid of, how the Catholics saved
France from Protestants in 1572, etc.).
P.S. That latter seems unimportant to us, but
it was *very* important to them.
More information about the extropy-chat