Why Not Utopia?

[crazy canuck]

Sure.  That is why I think it is odd that Yi was never exposed to the term in his studies - especially in the field of economics. 

I can't recall any of my economics professors using the term, either.  We did a lot of Marxism, but "political economy' is the phrase used for what he described as historical materialism.  the latter term may be important to you lawyers but not, i think, to economists.  Yi also could have heard the term once or twice as an obsolete term and just not remembered it.  Much like a history student may hear the term filibuster and never associate it with pirates.

I am not sure how one can do "a lot of Marxism" and not have "used" the term.   Were Americans so fearful of communism that the universities refused to use the terms Marx used in his writings?

[grumbler]

You are living in "anything less" right now, dumbass.

Yes. The west became wealthy and succesfull using free market principles, then decided to become a wellfare state and squander all the advantages they had, and now China has catched up.
So yes, I do realize we don't have a free market economy, and we will eventually become a 3rd world hellhole.

And fuck yo bitvch.

We have *never* had the "free market" economy you are babbling about. Not ever.

Now it is you falling for his shtick?

Anyone who has studied history knows that the pre-welfare-state "West" was a bitter hellhole marred by two grotesque world wars, and that it wasn't until the middle class established its political ascendancy in the late 40s that peace and social welfare marked the West.  And anyone who has studied world events knows that China has by no means "caught up" with the West in any meaningful sense.  A stern chase is a long chase.

[grumbler]

I am not sure how one can do "a lot of Marxism" and not have "used" the term.   Were Americans so fearful of communism that the universities refused to use the terms Marx used in his writings?

Americans are not so fearful of communism that they pretend that Marxism is one term.

[crazy canuck]

I am not sure how one can do "a lot of Marxism" and not have "used" the term.   Were Americans so fearful of communism that the universities refused to use the terms Marx used in his writings?

Americans are not so fearful of communism that they pretend that Marxism is one term.

Seriously, you don't understand that concept of historical materialism is a key concept in the writings of Marx?

edit:  I guess that is unfair since you never encountered the phrase.

[Eddie Teach]

Now it is you falling for his shtick?

Anyone who has studied history knows that the pre-welfare-state "West" was a bitter hellhole marred by two grotesque world wars, and that it wasn't until the middle class established its political ascendancy in the late 40s that peace and social welfare marked the West.  And anyone who has studied world events knows that China has by no means "caught up" with the West in any meaningful sense.  A stern chase is a long chase.

How do you know that Siege has studied history? 

[grumbler]

Seriously, you don't understand that concept of historical materialism is a key concept in the writings of Marx?

edit:  I guess that is unfair since you never encountered the phrase.

The concept is important, the term is not.  I guess I have to go back and unremember encountering the term, now that you have informed me that, much to my surprise, I "never encountered the phrase."  Not sure how i will manage that, but the only alternative is to realize that you are wrong again/still.

[crazy canuck]

Seriously, you don't understand that concept of historical materialism is a key concept in the writings of Marx?

edit:  I guess that is unfair since you never encountered the phrase.

The concept is important, the term is not.  I guess I have to go back and unremember encountering the term, now that you have informed me that, much to my surprise, I "never encountered the phrase."  Not sure how i will manage that, but the only alternative is to realize that you are wrong again/still.

I see.  So it was a phrase you encountered but your professors were ever so diligent in avoiding the use of the phrase. 

[grumbler]

I see.  So it was a phrase you encountered but your professors were ever so diligent in avoiding the use of the phrase.

This smells like a strawman.  Why don't you beat it up and then tell me more about what I have and haven't encountered?  That's always fun and useful.

[crazy canuck]

I see.  So it was a phrase you encountered but your professors were ever so diligent in avoiding the use of the phrase.

This smells like a strawman.  Why don't you beat it up and then tell me more about what I have and haven't encountered?  That's always fun and useful.

Feels more like you retreating from a statement that none of your professors used the phrase historical materialism even though you claim you "did a lot of Marxism".

[Siege]

https://ronloneysbooks.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ameritopia-the-unmaking-of-america-by-mark-r-levin4.pdf


Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
PART I—ON UTOPIANISM ........................................................................ 2
CHAPTER ONE—THE TYRANNY OF UTOPIA ....................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER TWO—PLATO'S REPUBLIC AND THE PERFECT SOCIETY .............................................. 5
CHAPTER THREE—THOMAS MORE'S UTOPIA AND POWERFUL STATE ........................................ 6
CHAPTER FOUR—THOMAS HOBBE'S LEVIATHAN AND THE ALL-POWERFUL STATE .................. 8
CHAPTER FIVE—KARL MARX'S COMMUNIST MANIFESTO AND THE CLASS STRUGGLE ............ 9


PART II—ON AMERICANISM .................................................................. 11
CHAPTER SIX—JOHN LOCKE AND THE NATURE OF MAN .............................................................. 11
CHAPTER SEVEN—THE INFLUENCE OF LOCKE ON THE FOUNDERS .......................................... 14
CHAPTER EIGHT—CHARLES DE MONTESQUIEU AND REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT ................ 16
CHAPTER NINE—THE INFLUENCE OF MONTESQUIEU ON THE FRAMERS .................................. 18
CHAPTER TEN—ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE AND DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA ............................... 19


PART III—ON UTOPIANISM AND AMERICANISM ................................. 20
CHAPTER ELEVEN—POST-CONSTITUTIONAL AMERICA ................................................................ 20
CHAPTER TWELVE—AMERITOPIA ... 24
EPILOGUE ............................................................................................... 34





. . . Utopianism is the ideological and doctrinal foundation for statism. While utopianism
and statism or utopian and statist are often used interchangeably, the undertaking here is to
probe more deeply into what motivates and animates the tyranny of statism. Indeed, the
modern arguments about the necessities and virtues of government control over the individual
are but malign echoes of utopian prescriptions through the ages, which attempted to define
subjugation as the most transcendent state of man. Utopianism has long promoted the idea of
a paradisiacal existence and advanced concepts of pseudo "ideal" societies in which a heroic
despot, a benevolent sovereign, or an enlightened oligarchy claims the ability and authority to
provide for all the needs and fulfill all the wants of the individual—in exchange for his abject
servitude.
Levin, Mark R. (2012-01-17). Ameritopia . Simon & Schuster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.



http://www.marklevinshow.com/upload/Docs/Ameritopiach1.pdf

[Ideologue]

You should be exiled to Somalia.  When your superior, State-given training leads you to be crowned king of the Somalis, you will know in your heart that you've become exactly what you hate: an African with authority.

[Valmy]

Rich should be free to use their money however they want.

True. Did I somewhere propose they should not have that freedom?

If they consume it all, then natural selection will select them out of the rich pool of people, as have happened to so many trust fund kids.

Yes but then goods and services are not consumed. Kind of a bummer for the economy.

If they are smart and invest it all, they will create taxable wealth and more economic opportunities.

Yes more opportunities to produce goods and services. But you need consumers or those investments will not pay off.

Business create more business, as wealth creates more wealth.
It is very simple.

If it is so simple why aren't you a billionaire? It is not simple.

[Valmy]

. . . Utopianism is the ideological and doctrinal foundation for statism. While utopianism
and statism or utopian and statist are often used interchangeably, the undertaking here is to
probe more deeply into what motivates and animates the tyranny of statism.

I am not sure what Utopianism is an ideology. But I have seen plenty of non-statist utopian ideas out there. Well actually all non-statist ideas are utopian.

As for what motivates statism: we are human beings and no bears or something. We are social. If you love non-statism so much make it work someplace. I am a practical man.

[grumbler]

Feels more like you retreating from a statement that none of your professors used the phrase historical materialism even though you claim you "did a lot of Marxism".

When you work with your clients, do you translate a statement along the lines of that someone "can't recall any of my economics professors using the term" to tell the judge that they made "a statement that none of your professors used the phrase?'  If not, why are you honest with them and dishonest here?  if so, why are you dishonest in general?

Also, when you learned (because i told you) that modern economics professors (at London School of Economics, mind) used a more modern term than "historical materialism," why do you insist that it is somehow astonishing  that they didn't use the older term that Marx coined?

How many economics courses did you take at Georgetown or LSE, anyway?

[crazy canuck]

Feels more like you retreating from a statement that none of your professors used the phrase historical materialism even though you claim you "did a lot of Marxism".

When you work with your clients, do you translate a statement along the lines of that someone "can't recall any of my economics professors using the term" to tell the judge that they made "a statement that none of your professors used the phrase?'  If not, why are you honest with them and dishonest here?  if so, why are you dishonest in general?

Also, when you learned (because i told you) that modern economics professors (at London School of Economics, mind) used a more modern term than "historical materialism," why do you insist that it is somehow astonishing  that they didn't use the older term that Marx coined?

How many economics courses did you take at Georgetown or LSE, anyway?

Lol, the terms historical materialism and political economy are well known.  And have been well known for some time.  One does not need to go to Georgetown or LSE to have heard those phrases uttered by professors, but according to you, for some strange reason, your economics professors did not use the term historical materialism when referring to the writings of Marx even though that was the tem he coined.  Odd.