The Basis of "Contemporary Liberalism"

julian4239 · Mayor Joined: 07 Jun 2006 Posts: 211

I would recommend that you read Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Hegel was a 18th century philosopher.

Read the part of the dialectic.

This is the thinking that produced some thoughts:

Nietchism
Nazism (Hitler)
Communism
Marxism
Feminism

The philosophy poses 2 opposing points: Thesis and Antithesis.

When Thesis and Anthesis collide, you get Synthesis.

So, there are 2 forces in history. Many contemporary liberals believe that there are always 2 opposing forces:

Rich vs. Poor (Communists)
Man vs Woman (Feminists)
Environment vs Industry (Neo-marxists)

Unfortunately, folks, the world doesn't work this way.

Dolly · Mayor Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 247

Well, I think your last line, made the point.

We will never be equal as a species because we don't actually want to be equal. One man always wants to be better than the next, but maybe in different ways.

Communism has been an excuse by some to control the majority, hidden of course under the guise of equality.

Mao, used communism to further his own interests. He took it on board just to get more support away from Chiang Kai Shek - And I know that spelling is way off the mark!

julian4239 · Mayor Joined: 07 Jun 2006 Posts: 211

Good point, Dolly. I think we all have our own priorities. For example, a nun doesn't want to be rich; so does she have to be equal, or want to be equal, with higher income wage earners? It's ok for her to be poor. In the social work industry, the field is much more dominate by women. So, are they being sexist by not having enough men? No, it's simply because our free markets allow these individuals to pursue whatever interest that they want.

The world is very diverse. Not all individuals strive for the same kind of success.

Dolly · Mayor Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 247

Taking it a bit further, why do communist countries always have to be equal at the poorest, subsistence level?

Is it sold to them this way - we will all be equal, but standing on the bottom rung together?

Or is it sold to them as a utopia that never materialises?

Or, are they told it's utopia and it only dawns on them at a later stage that it isn't?