The failure of Liberalism (Regressive left) to deal with Islam

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Hitchens was not a Trostkyite after, like, 2000. Probably earlier. He definitely didn't identify as such "all his life".

Until the day, he died, reportedly.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2012/...itchs-service/

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I have seen several interviews where he himself referred to his Trotskyite leanings in the past tense.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I have seen several interviews where he himself referred to his Trotskyite leanings in the past tense.

Well, of course, as he gained in popularity, mainly with an American audience, such associations become a bit of a PR hindrance.

His last words hearkened to his Marxist leanings.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by peter12

Anyway, the man loved a soundbite, was eloquent in an argument, but displayed no rigor when it came to any kind of cohesion amongst his own arguments, or that of his opponents.

Look at his debate partners. Not a serious scholar among them. He preferred the flim-flam artists, the backwoods preachers, the fools...

Hitchens was debating against the influential, not the lettered.

I agree he wasn't particularly cohesive, though I also agree with blankall that that's not inherently desirable.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by peter12

His last words hearkened to his Marxist leanings.

Once asked about his last words in the context of a deathbed conversion, he said:

Originally Posted by Hitchens

If that comes, it will be when I am very ill; when I am half demented, either by drugs or by pain. I won’t have control over what I say. [...] I can’t say that the entity, that by then wouldn’t be me, wouldn’t do such a pathetic thing.

It makes no sense to me to attribute some sort of elevated stock or special meaning to a person's last words. As a person lays dying they're by definition barely a functional human being anymore.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Hitchens was debating against the influential, not the lettered.

I agree he wasn't particularly cohesive, though I also agree with blankall that that's not inherently desirable.

He wasn't rigorous, and was actually quite a sloppy thinker. Good writer, great speaker, but also highlighted his strengths by taking ugly dates to prom.

All told, I really liked Hitchens, but I can't stand the cult of celebrity that continues to surround him. He was North America's exposure to a public intellectual personality type that is actually very common in England.

Personally, I think he was more of a courageous thinker, than a good one, and I really appreciated his willingness to stick it to those who needed it the most. If it had been accompanied with some humility, I think he would have been more effective.

His brother, Peter, is entirely the same.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Once asked about his last words in the context of a deathbed conversion, he said:

It makes no sense to me to attribute some sort of elevated stock or special meaning to a person's last words. As a person lays dying they're by definition barely a functional human being anymore.

Capitalism... downfall.

The quote you used was Hitchen's response to the possibility of a death-bed conversion.

I don't think any of this really matters. As I've argued, he wasn't exactly consistent when it came to his own personal beliefs, and there is some controversy over whether he had actually ever read Marx.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Once asked about his last words in the context of a deathbed conversion, he said:

It makes no sense to me to attribute some sort of elevated stock or special meaning to a person's last words. As a person lays dying they're by definition barely a functional human being anymore.

Thats an unfair use of that quote.

In context, he was talking about renouncing his atheism and succumbing to Pascal's wager.

Using that quote to nullify anything said when near-death is misguided.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by peter12

All told, I really liked Hitchens, but I can't stand the cult of celebrity that continues to surround him.

I heard that he figured out Ronald Reagan was having an affair with Marilyn Munroe.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Is everyone blind? I specifically said the quote was given in the context of a deathbed conversion. Peter then said "yeah but that was in the context of a deathbed conversion". Now you're saying the same damned thing. I acknowedged it up front!

The point is his statement that when dying he wouldn't be the same person that we knew him as. As such he might say any number of things that shouldn't be credited. That's true of anyone, hence my addendum at the end.

Jesus.

[Gozer]

I don't think "adherence to Trotsky" is a useful use of the phrase "deathbed conversion."

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Is everyone blind? I specifically said the quote was given in the context of a deathbed conversion. Peter then said "yeah but that was in the context of a deathbed conversion". Now you're saying the same damned thing. I acknowedged it up front!

The point is his statement that when dying he wouldn't be the same person that we knew him as. As such he might say any number of things that shouldn't be credited. That's true of anyone, hence my addendum at the end.

Jesus.

Yeah, but we knew him as a Trotskyist, not as someone who left open the possibility of converting at the last minute.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

That's not the point, the point is that two last words when someone is dying does not tell you much of use about a person's world view. This elevated importance you're putting on it makes no sense to me.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's not the point, the point is that two last words when someone is dying does not tell you much of use about a person's world view. This elevated importance you're putting on it makes no sense to me.

I used it as a small rhetorical flourish.

Anyone who has paid any attention to Hitchens would know how important Trotsky was. Man, why do you have to find a hill to die on every time?

It is ancillary to the discussion. Yes, he was a Trotskyist, no, he wasn't always cohesive in his personal ideology.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by blankall

At the basis of leftist though is the motto:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

It relies on the fact that, in a socialist system, everyone will work as hard as they can and only take what they need.

First of all, nobody on the left actually wants a socialist system. Cherrypicking a few good ideas is quite enough for them.

Second, that is not the basis of leftist thinking. It's actually not even terribly common idea in todays left wing politics, especially not in North America. Your view is like a blast from the sixties.

By far the more common reason why people are left-leaning these days is because they believe left-wing economics to be cost effective or directly beneficial to themselves.

There's a reason why far left activists constantly complain that the majority of "left wing" politicians don't actually care about the poor and the homeless. It's because it's true. Sure, the left wing politicians like to talk about how something is "fair", but you have to say something nice in speeches.

Progressive taxation is simply good economics that's proven to work. Right now the rich simply have so much money that it's stupid not to take it from them. It's the right that tries to counter this with moralistic arguments that it's "stealing". Boohoo. It works. (Or at least the left believe it works, which is the point of the argument.)

It's also simply a fact that public healthcare is a much cheaper way of doing things. If you have a sick relative, this question becomes very close to your personal finances. Providing safe and cheap abortions easily is simply the most rational way of handling the issue, according to numerous studies and historical data. Again lots of people support this for personal reasons. Widely available cheap education brings enourmous benefits to the society in the long run, both economically and by bringing social stability through the the possibility of upwards mobility (which in itself is good for a country). If you're worried about your student loans or your ability to pay for your kids education, this is stuff you start to think about. Putting people to jail for drug use is not helping the situation, it's just been making things worse.

You might have noticed that the left is interested in a much wider range of studies than is generally the case at right. This IMO is quite telling of which side is actually the calculating side and which side is the naïve moralists.

The right wants to do what's right. It bothers them if someone is doing something wrong, to the point where it doesn't matter if the solution is more costly than the problem, or even that the "solution" might not do what it's supposed to do. (See: The War on Drugs.)

The left generally wants to do something that is cost-effective and proven to work.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by peter12

He wasn't rigorous, and was actually quite a sloppy thinker. Good writer, great speaker, but also highlighted his strengths by taking ugly dates to prom.

All told, I really liked Hitchens, but I can't stand the cult of celebrity that continues to surround him. He was North America's exposure to a public intellectual personality type that is actually very common in England.

Personally, I think he was more of a courageous thinker, than a good one, and I really appreciated his willingness to stick it to those who needed it the most. If it had been accompanied with some humility, I think he would have been more effective.

His brother, Peter, is entirely the same.

Naw, what made Hitchens somewhat unique was his willingness to cross partisan lines. He came across as a voice of reason, because he didn't subscribe to one set of party beliefs. That remains today, a pretty unique characteristic for a public or academic figure. The vast majority of intellectuals overly define themselves.

Even if they define themselves a Trosksyist, a liberal, a conservative, etc... they'll take on positions that are, at their heart, contradictory to those definitions, but instead are part of the bundle of positions that go along with a certain political affiliation. For example Hitchens being willing to say one middle east war was justified while another was not. Most academics would stick to the more dogmatic approach and say all wars are justified or all aren't.

[Gozer]

I think that applies to American corporate media figures more than the (UK) academics that peter12 suggested are Hitchen's peers.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Itse

By far the more common reason why people are left-leaning these days is because they believe left-wing economics to be cost effective or directly beneficial to themselves.

I couldn't agree with you less.

The most common reason why people are left-leaning is that they think left-leaning policies are moral ones. The chief argument against the other side isn't that their policies are flawed. It's that they're bigots, warmongers and fearmongers who want to oppress women and control their bodies, don't care about poor people, and just want to hoard wealth for the people who already have too much and need to "pay their fair share".

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by peter12

... there is some controversy over whether he had actually ever read Marx.

Precisely. Reading the works of Marx, Marx/Engels and Lenin is a very serious, tedious and not overly entertaining task. At a detail level, it is mostly done by professional academic scholars; to a much-much smaller degree – by students of philosophy and history. Communist ideals, in their most primitive transcription, sound attractive to many western left liberal intellectuals and some of them announce their liking of them without really understanding what lies beneath.

Trotsky was a monster, the literal co-creator of the red terror along with Lenin. Lenin was a bloody monster himself, having no respect for human life, property and law. But in many ways, Trotsky was much much worse. Hitchens calling himself a fan of Trotsky was posturing, most likely... Although, Hitchens appeared as a very dark and misanthropic individual in person. So, who knows, really...

[PepsiFree]

As an aside, a thread with little potential for interesting debate has suddenly turned into one.

I'm enjoying reading the interpretations of Hitchens!