Dglgmut Posted July 29, 2020 Share Posted July 29, 2020 This thread is going to be disjointed and not meant to focus on a single topic, but to examine multiple fundamental errors that lead to leftist ideology (and perhaps others, but that's not the purpose of this thread). This is something I remember feeling myself when I was younger and I think is a common error that leftists make. This is not a cognitive error so much as it is a learned characteristic, but it is cured through cognition--which is in fact possible if the cure is more or less identification of the error. The result of this error is blatant hypocrisy: the cognitive dissonance that allows one to buy another new iPhone while publicly railing against capitalism. It is the practical belief that what you do is insignificant compared to the collective, and therefore it is not worth the cost of improving oneself before improving the collective. The cornerstone of leftist ethics is: after you. "Once the majority have rejected the benefits of capitalism, then, happily, I will too." What precisely is the error, though? The error is not placing proper importance on your own perspective. What you do may in fact not be significant from the perspective of society, but from your own perspective there is nothing more important. Another error I've been interested in is the floating abstraction. This is the abstraction that fills a role, deductively, but is not connected to anything in reality. This is ubiquitous in leftist thought. What made me think about this recently is how convoluted prominent economic theory is compared to the Austrian school. One error Rothbard has pointed out, and probably others, is the concept of capital. Capital is a fundamental concept at the foundation of popular economics, but it is a floating abstraction. Capital is anything, aside from labor, that produces value. But this quality can only be attributed post hoc. There is no physical quality that makes something capital rather than ordinary property. One example Rothbard used was a chair from your home when moved into a hotel room suddenly becomes capital. The Marxist definition of capital is not the means of production, but the money used to buy those means. But this does not factor in the risk or the labor involved in minimizing that risk. This is the problem with this post hoc quality: if the money is spent with the intention of producing profit, but fails, suddenly it's not capital. This is just a specific example (another obvious one in economics is inflation--which prices matter?), but I believe there are floating abstractions at the foundation of all the monstrous, convoluted leftist theories. Feel free to add to the list without forcing the thread down a specific path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now