For the record, I am going to re-write this essay to try to obtain more clarity -- for myself, my readers, and my first full-fledged 'dialectic-democratic' adversary from 'Living Outside The Dialectic' -- Ms. Niki Raapana. (
Let's hear the criticism directed at me from Ms. Rapaana before I write my response.
...................................................................
the tent lady said...
Hi David,
Communitarianism is the synthesis in the Hegelian dialectic. You want to dispute me properly, then do your readers a favor and dispute my published antithesis to Hegel's perfect synthesis, "The Anti communitarian Manifesto." It's available free online and remains undisputed after six years and thousands of downloads.
It's hilarious that you chose to cite a passage from my blog rather than a passage from our "What is the Hegelian Dialectic?" or "The Historical Evolution of Communitarian Thinking," or "Communitarian Law." Even my article "Elitism is Dialectical Terrorism" would have been a more appropriate source for your complaints against my work.
No matter what you think of me and my "arrogant trash talking language," you haven't made the slightest attempt to show what my argument is, let alone rationally dispute it.
You admit you don't even know what communitarianism is, you claim it's "too abstract" for you to comprehend (yet you claim to get Hegel!) and then (and God only knows how you arrived at this conclusion) you say Etzioni and I are "basically the same people."
Can you legitimately say I am the one who makes no attempt to learn anything meaningful about the world? You spent a lot of time trashing me in this post, maybe you should spend at least as much time studying this topic you admittedly know nothing about.
"In a passage that is notable for its vagueness, Azevedo says that the CEBs should be the basis for a new communitarianism that rejects the two "bankrupt" models and systems "that are now polarizing the world," capitalism and Marxist socialism. This communitarianism is to be "a dialectical synthesis, a new creation, superimposing itself on thesis and antithesis rather than retrieving them." The passage illustrates the controversy in Latin American Catholicism between those who continue to endorse the "third-position-ism" (tercerismo) of Catholic social teaching and those (including all liberation theologians that I know of) who believe that only socialism can be in accord with Christian values." Theology Today-Basic Ecclesial Communities in Brazil: The Challenge of a New Way of Being Church By Marcello deC. Azevedo, S.J.Washington, D.C., Georgetown University Press, 1987. 304 Pp. "
April 15, 2009 1:46 AM
.................................................................................
I'm not sure that my efforts here are going to achieve anything -- you get two philosophers debating with each other who are accustomed to writing and talking in their own conceptuology and own terminology, built from the historical context of their own experiences, readings, and resulting ideas -- and its like two people trying to talk to each other in totally different languages.
Even worse sometimes when the same words are used with different implied meanings in mind. Words like 'Capitalism', 'Socialism', 'Communitarianism' and 'Anti-Communitarianism' run the risk of generating either extremely positive or extremely negative semantic and evaluative connotations without debaters making sure beforehand that they are talking, writing -- and arguing -- about the same thing.
At some point, you have to ask yourself whether the expended time and energy is worth the results -- or non-results -- two people still stuck inside their own respective philosophical worlds and not being able to find a bridge between these two worlds, and/or even wanting to. Personal narcissism and egotism reigns supreme.
'Communitarianism'. Is this even something I want to write about? It would not have normally been something high -- or even low -- on my writing priority list.
I do not mind using the word 'Centralist'. In fact, I would definitely say that DGB Philosophy is a Centralist Philosophy. For example, in ideal terms, I would consider myself to be:
1. An Integrative Socialist-Capitalist (probably not as Socialist as Obama is showing to be...I do believe in running a budget in the black, not the red...not going deeper and deeper and deeper into the red until you are at the bottom of an economic well of debt where you cannot even see sunlight anymore...);
2. An Integrative Conservative-Liberal and/or an Integrative Republican-Democrat (same idea as above...some socialist leanings in the humanistic-existential treatment of the individual worker but predominantly Capitalist in ideology. Now this is important -- I support an 'Ethical Capitalism' as laid down at least mainly by Adam Smith in 'The Wealth of Nations' and by Ayn Rand in 'The Fountainhead' and 'Atlas Shrugged' but in this regard, a type of Ethical Capitalism that includes the economic and psychological well-being of both Wall Street and Main Street, not a type of unethical, narcissistic Capitalism that allows Wall Street CEOs and top executives the opportunity to give themselves 'million dollar parachutes -- and bail' while the workers under them are left to face the music in a 'rubbish company' that has been left bankrupt with its customers out on the street because of foreclosed homes.
'DGBN' stands for:
1. Dialectic-Democratic Gap-Bridging Negotiations;
2. Dialectic-Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism.
.......................................................................
Now I have two negative images here -- or at least partly negative images (call them negative steretypes if you wish) that come to my mind when I think of 'Communitarianism' and 'Anti-Communitarianism'.
If by 'Communitarianism' the implied meaning is 'Collectivism' -- then I want to do with neither because I do not want to be associated with Collectivism which brings to mind the idea of 'Group Think' (with individual ideas and rights being wiped out of existence by the 'Collective Group' which may not even be a 'Participatory or Representative Democracy' but rather a 'Ruling Elite'). I have no interest -- DGB Philosophy has no interest -- in supporting a cause like this.
Now if by 'Anti-Communitarianism' -- and I mean no disrespect here, Ms. Niki Raapana, but what may be good, or pleasurable, for you, may not be good or pleasurable for me -- if by 'Anti-Communtiarianism', the implied meaning is living in a tent in Alaska -- particularly in the winter -- I pass. I will take my warm townhouse in Newmarket, Ontario, thank you very much. 'Anti-Communitarianism' sounds also like 'Anti-Community' which I don't think is the intent of the meaning. If by 'Anti-Communitarianism' the idea of 'Anti-Collectivism' is meant, then I would again prefer you call me an 'Anti-Collectivist' rather than an 'Anti-Communitarian'.
Now, Ms. Niki, if by 'Anti-Communitarianism' you mean some kind of return to Nature and Romantic Philosophy, I can subscribe to that ideal easily enough -- indeed, you have my full support -- just as long as I can have my warm townhouse to start from.
So what else is 'Anti-Communitarianism'? I will write again what I wrote the last time I wrote this essay.
'Anti-Communitarianism' is not 'living outside the dialectic'. It is living on one polar edge of a recently evolving dialectic. I'm going to assume, Ms. Niki, that you are critiquing the nature of our 'North American Elitist -- Run From Behind The Scenes -- Pseudo Democracy'.
Do I have it right this time, Niki?
If I am right in my interpretation here of your philosophical work, then again I support you in your cause. Just don't call it 'living outside the dialectic'. Because every time you write, you are engaging in a 'fresh, new dialectic' -- either with me, or with someone else whose philosophy you don't like, or with someone else who has critiqued your work, or with anyone out there whose philosophy you label and stereotype as 'Communitarian'.
To the extent that Hegel was a 'political collectivist', I do not support this aspect of his work. In similar fashion, I do not support this aspect of Rousseau's political philosophy. Nor Plato's. Nor any of the deeds coming out of the 'political terrorist' years of Communist China (Mao Tse Tung) and/or Russia (Lenin, Stalin). These barbaric leaders didn't support any aspect of the 'humanistic-existential' philosophy of Marx's early work before Marx himself started to become more extremist, less democratic, and less humanistic.
DGB Philosophy is a Centralist Philosophy -- in that I believe in a constantly evolving 'dialectic-democratic, homeostatic balance between individual rights and government safety networks that guard people's individual rights and protect them from economic and/or medical traumacy but it is not a 'Collectivist Philosophy' nor is it a 'Communitarian Philosophy' to the extent of 'Collectivism' being meant. (Who amongst us wants our 'individual rights' wiped out?)
DGB Philosophy may be an 'Anti-Communitarian' philosophy to the extent that it believes in 'individual rights' and the pursuit of romantic philosophy and Nature. If by 'Anti-Communitarianism' a type of 'romantic-enlightenment' philosophy is meant, then I am in. But the name 'Anti-Communitarianism' is rather politically provocative and seems to excite all sorts of 'Us vs. Them' reactions. Why not just call 'Anti-Communitarianism' -- 'Anti-Political Conspiracy Philosophy'? Or 'Anti-Collectivism'? Less confusion -- less disagreement -- more philosophical supporters. Maybe Anti-Communitarianism derives its 'philosophical energy' from fighting philosophical adversaries who may at the bottom, main common denominators, actually agree with you, Ms. Niki
But maybe 'philosophical agreement' is less challenging and less exciting for you, Ms. Niki...
Maybe, Niki, you are just one of those people who is used to -- and thrives on -- rubbing people the wrong way.
-- dgb, April 22, 2009, updated May 11th, 2010.
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
-- Are Still in Process...
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissistic Righteousness...
..................................................................................
