tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-569277242662827759.post9073377258737472691..comments2023-11-02T08:19:29.550-07:00Comments on The moderate contrarian: Why moderate? Why contrarian?dandiacalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09769500137964384489noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-569277242662827759.post-2301961697621590532010-08-31T10:05:02.096-07:002010-08-31T10:05:02.096-07:00I meant that the idea of economics (the invention ...I meant that the <i>idea</i> of economics (the invention of economics) is a radical idea and the only reason it isn't considered a strange and radical idea now is because we see it as something that is almost natural, something that has "always been", something that is part of the way "the world is". It's true that I wrongly conflated the current, capitalist economic system with economics in general when I said that it requires constant growth (the capitalist system cannot contract without recessions and/or depressions in one form or another), but if you strike the phrase "that growth is always good" from my response, it changes nothing about my argument.<br /><br />Changing the current, radical economic system and the current radical environmental practices etc. cannot be done through moderate means unless, PERHAPS, we are willing to wait a long, long time. But scientists have recently warned that by 2300 the Earth may very well be too hot for humans, not to mention that the Oceans are headed towards death (and many, many other things). All of this requires a total paradigm shift (or multiple paradigm shifts). You may or may not consider the particular philosophies that need to be shifted to as being "radical" in and of themselves, but the shift itself, because of the all encompassing system we live in, <i>is</i> indeed radical. <br /><br />Besides, it's easy to label anything we find wrong-headed "radical"; it seems to me that the term is relative to whatever is well accepted. Women's rights were once considered radical, as was the abolitionist movement, the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun, even democracy itself. And now many of the people who see the urge for a complete shift in the way we live and view our lives (and life on the planet in general) are considered radical. It often depends on your vantage point. This is why I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to be against whatever (or whomever) may or may not be "radical"; it's much better to be against whatever (or whomever) may or may not make the most sense in any given situation. (This alone might exclude me from having a "radical psychological disposition" (because I'm willing to take in various thoughts and ideas etc.) But then again, perhaps in some way it could be said that you are "radical in your moderateness". I don't really know what "radical as a psychological disposition" means... Maybe certain people take radical positions automatically simply because there is something about their make-up that urges them to do so? Or "radical" as a disposition that shuts out all other points of views and ideas... but that's more appropriately called "fundamentalism" in my opinion.)<br /><br />Anyway, I'm sure we could talk about all of this forever. I'm going to re-read your post (and more carefully) and see if there is anything I might have missed or read/interpreted incorrectly. Thanks for your response. As I said before, I enjoy your blog.Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01479335064804017878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-569277242662827759.post-39762442295835509642010-08-30T21:18:01.862-07:002010-08-30T21:18:01.862-07:00Thanks so much for your thorough and politically t...Thanks so much for your thorough and politically truthful responses. It is true I was thinking of radical as a psychological disposition primarily and I am guilty of being a "Liberal" which I see as distinct from Radical. The Anarchists have often been correct in certain moments. I think they were never allowed to flourish because of the pervasive influence of Stalinism (Spain for example). It is also true, as you point out that current economic and environmental practices are radical and destructive. I am not sure a different economy would be radical in the sense that I mean. I still am not sure either that the world is unitary. The crimes you mention are real and may well require a different kind of economy. But Economics as a discipline is not inherently guilty. There have been economists who do not assume the goodness and sanctity of growth for example. And economists have often written wisely on many issues that are not monetary in value. It just so happens that current economists are under the sway of very narrow economistic thinking.<br /><br />Thanks for reading and commenting!dandiacalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09769500137964384489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-569277242662827759.post-19999828224927611112010-08-30T15:07:36.967-07:002010-08-30T15:07:36.967-07:00Looking at it another way: "Thus, if there ar...Looking at it another way: "Thus, if there are evils in this world to be corrected, those evils do not warrant a thoroughgoing destruction of the given society in which we find those evils as such societies. I leave aside the special horrors of totalitarian or aristocratic regimes. In those cases radical measures should be taken to prevent the crimes of such regimes." By saying this you are in agreement with most Anarchists, the only difference is that they see the corporate takeover of America as fascistic. ("Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." --Mussolini.) Bear in mind that it also isn't very hard for many "non-radical" people in America to see their government acting (directly) on them in much to same way totalitarian regimes act on their people. In Appalachia, for example, many of the people have undrinkable, toxic water and suffer from chronic diseases due to the mountaintop removal mining going on there. They're treated as a nuisance -- collateral damage for big business (the entire planet is!). Who cares if they can vote for one of two candidates if both of the candidates are in the pocket of energy companies? Here we can also see that people are indeed "used" as means to an end in our current system. And of course all of this says nothing of the rest of the world, where people are treated far worse by many of our policies. To use an easy example: those in poor countries making our clothing and gadgets for slave wages, often in unsafe (even toxic) conditions -- they too are a means to an end. Period. And look at the people of Ecuador and the Niger Delta (high cancer rates, destroyed ecosystem) where big oil has gone to find the fuel that keeps us going and going, all at the expense of most of the rest of the world and planet. <br /><br />I don't think it would make much sense to siphon all of these things out individually and label them as the "radical evil" that needs (moderate?) reform when they're all so much a part of our society and civilization as a whole. Changing these things requires drastic, radical change, and what would be left wouldn't resemble the society we now know.<br /><br />Also, it's not as if, for a "radical" (another word I loathe), the solution to every problem is automatically a "radical" one. Who cares if any particular solution is radical, moderate, or whatever; the only thing that should matter is whether or not it's the best one we have at our disposal. At the very least we ought to leave ourselves open to the possibility that some problems may require "radical" solutions.Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01479335064804017878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-569277242662827759.post-24009639815533248392010-08-30T15:00:32.923-07:002010-08-30T15:00:32.923-07:00"It is radical to require that everyone own a..."It is radical to require that everyone own and drive individual cars. It was radical to develop a centralized oil system to extract that from the earth. To be so single minded in overhauling our industrial system in that way was quite a radical set of decisions. Radical in the sense of being extreme in its narrow focus and in the demands it placed upon ourselves and the earth."<br /><br />Radical or not, civilization as we currently know it is unsustainable and destructive, period. You seem to recognize this above, yet you go on to say:<br /><br />"As a moderate I reject the notion that there is one interconnected world or whole. Thus, if there are evils in this world to be corrected, those evils do not warrant a thoroughgoing destruction of the given society in which we find those evils as such societies."<br /><br />It does if what is "evil" (I loathe that word!) is the societies themselves. For example, rooting out the "evils" that are causing climate change and driving humans and much of the natural world towards extinction would require the destruction of much (if not all) of what makes industrial civilization what it is. You cannot dismantle the fossil fuel economy and the military-industrial complex and car culture and agriculture and factory farming etc. without major, radical changes to society as we know it.<br /><br />Economics itself it a radical ideology which assumes that everything has a monetary value, that growth is always good, and that we're better off in a world with money than in one without... Anything new that requires deep change or a paradigm shift could be called radical -- Democracy certainly was. Opposing slavery was. Anarchism is only seen as a radical philosophy because of how far removed it is from where we are now. Personally I don't see why any of its basic tenants should be seen as radical -- they seem like common sense to me. For example, the belief that power is automatically illegitimate unless proven otherwise... That's only a radical concept in a world so dependent upon hierarchy and exploitation. In a more egalitarian world, "pro-hierarchy ideas" would be seen as radical. Another basic anarchist idea: that it is wrong to "be radical with people's lives, to force them to fit into a prior arranged scheme against their will." Surely the world we live in currently does this in many ways -- "make money or starve!" being perhaps the most obvious way.<br /><br />What's radical (nay, insane) to me is to buy into a belief system which assumes that the natural world is a resource to be used instead of something to enter into a relationship with... Yet this is one of the major assumptions on which modern civilization is built. To paraphrase J.G. Ballard, we're sleepwalking into oblivion thinking only about the corporate logos on our shroud. Modern life in America is mostly about getting ahead, getting more, buying things, etc. People starve while we buy our third pair of shoes. We spend enough money on dog food and perfume to feed everyone who starves annually worldwide. Reforming this way of life requires radical changes to our values, our way of life, our policies, our society.Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01479335064804017878noreply@blogger.com