If we were going to follow Lenin's lead in starting a revolution, what would that mean? Let's go through it, step by step: Step 1: Be born the son of a minor aristocrat in a semi-industrialized, yet imperialist and profoundly repressive society with a large yet deeply divided portion of the populace already dedicated to the violent overthrow of the government. Step 2: Wait for a world war. Step 3: When violent overthrow of the government comes (emerging out of anti-war protests), don't have anything to do with it. Don't even be in the country, or aware of what's happening, but by total coincidence, just happen to be the family friend of the person who comes to be in charge of the new government. Step 4: From the center of imperialism, and later from a neutral country, write abstract theory that almost no one reads, in which you advocate for allowing enemy countries to defeat your country in war. No one reads this, that is, except for the secret police of the impe...
Posts
Another problem with utilitarianism, or group of problems
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
I don't regard this as the fundamental problem with utilitarianism, but any competent utilitarian will have to deal with this objection at some point. And to be fair, many of them do. Although, when I read them closely, I often wonder: when a given utilitarian writes about these questions, are they actually answering them, or are they merely brushing them to the side? Utilitarians tend to challenge the values of earlier, more traditional moral systems. Take, for instance, how utilitarians deal with with the concept of honor. Utilitarians tend to reject the idea that honor has intrinsic value. For a utilitarian such as Jeremy Bentham, the only things that have intrinsic value are pleasure and pain. Bentham admits to the existence of, and even stresses the importance of what he calls the "pleasures of reputation" and the "sanction of public opinion." But honor, if it is a coherent concept at all in Bentham's eyes, is only a relative value and not an int...
"Better Fewer But Better"
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
There's nothing so pathetic as when Leninists today tell each other "Better fewer but better." It's so sad. It's pure cope, for being losers that don't have many friends, and are quickly losing the friends and allies that they do have. I really think it's essentially pathological. "Oh, you reject me? Well that just proves how right I am!" That kind of pattern of behavior and self-justification and self-delusion does not end well. Build a bigger movement. Better yet, join a bigger movement. And then make it even bigger. Bear in mind that when Lenin said, "Better fewer but better," he was already head of state. Whenever I see a Leninist loser in America saying "Better fewer but better," I want to say, okay, buddy, take over the state first. Then you can start saying "Better fewer but better." The truth is, even in Lenin's time, "Better fewer but better" was a terrible strategy, one that turned ...