Re: The Anatomy of Weird Fiction
Posted by:
Sawfish (IP Logged)
Date: 11 July, 2021 02:48PM
Avoosl Wuthoqquan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -
> > As to the "dictionary fetish", I'm inclined to
> > favor it *for sake of precision of intent*.
>
> That’s good enough for me (as if you’d need --
> or even desire -- my approval… :P ).
>
> As a linguist and translator I am convinced that
> dictionaries should be descriptive, not
> prescriptive, but (and this is the first and last
> political comment I will ever make on this site)
> the way ‘racism’ (a word referring to a
> despicable ideology) has come to mean
> ‘xenophobia’ (a human foible all of us are
> ‘guilty’ of) has forever castrated what used
> to be the political left (i.e. a movement looking
> after people who have to work for a living (that
> would be you and me), instead of being obsessed
> with who goes to what bathroom) is lamentable. And
> I say this as an almost card-carrying socialist as
> well as a self-employed, gay, trans-friendly,
> home-owning European, whose public health
> insurance covered the curing of his cancer in
> 2019.
Gosh, Avoosl, I would really like to discuss these topics with you, the reasons being that you are rational and well-considered, and a thoroughly enjoyable correspondent. Everything I look for in a interlocutor to discuss social/topical issues.
I'm not looking to be right; I am looking to "get it right", and by this I mean my default worldview--i.e., how things *work* and why...
A few preview: the nature of socialism
As a college student I considered communism and socialism, both of which come in various flavors, but all of which seem to me to share the happy ideal of a society of individuals that care enough about all members of the society to voluntarily sacrifice some of the fruits of their own personal labor.
Later, when I was older but just as dumb, I reversed polarities and proclaimed that socialism could not work, ever, and that a free-market approach with little to no external (governmental) regulation.
But gradual realizations of what open free-market actually means/implies, and especially the 2008 financial meltdown and my subsequent personal research into the mechanisms of the collapse, led me to rethink the whole question about economic systems, and I've come up with some interesting personal conclusions that need further testing.
E.g., successful, stable socialism *can* and does exist, but it is limited in application by scope and ethnic (and maybe national) identity. This came to me like a thunderclap, at first, when I had to recognize that virtually every American Indian tribe was of an informal socialistic organization. This led me to unravel that it had evolved from the natural socialism practiced within the family structure, and extended (also naturally) to the clan and maybe tribal levels.
But beyond that scope it tends to break, because to have a stable socialist system it would need to be either voluntary and self-motivated, or alternatively massively and forcibly coerced by an external authority--which I would argue is probably not really stable and is subject to civil unrest.
Now, if accurate, why is this?
It's simply because to have voluntary socialism--probably the only stable form of socialism--there has to be bilateral trust between those who have surplus resources (net contributor) to be shared by those who have insufficient resources (net recipient). If the net contributor does not trust that the net recipient actually has attempted to honestly attain self-reliance, and is basically sand-bagging to a greater or lesser degree, they'll attempt to withhold contributions. They will tend to disrespect the net recipients as a class, for appearing to fail to have any intention of contributing, ever.
Similarly, if the net recipient does not trust that the net contributors are contributing fairly (they are somehow gaming the system), they will resent the net contributors as a class. They will also suspect that they are the object of scorn and disrespect, which is probably accurate to a varying degree.
To be the knowing recipient of forced collectivist surpluses is demeaning, as well, leading to another type of resentment.
However, within the scope of a family/clan/tribe (maybe), the physical proximity of the contributors to the recipient reassures the contributors that indeed, the recipient really does need help, and the recipients can see that the resources shared by the contributors really do reduce the assets of the contributor. Literally, they *are( making a personal sacrifice.
Once the contributors no longer have visibility of the recipients, and vice-versa, this breaks down into lasting mistrust.
And this mistrust, in turn, can be played masterfully by demagogues--which routinely, and increasingly happens here in the US.
This is amplified by one degree of magnitude if the contributor/recipient are of different races/ethnicities/nationalities. Religions are a factor, but often less so.
So a large muiti-ethnic/multiracial society such as the US would have to use official coercion to apply socialistic programs, whereas it would be easier in a smaller, more racially/ethnically homogeneous society.
In fact, socialism's true and natural application may be natural and voluntary associations based on shared values, such as family/blood groups, or religious affiliations.
That's where I am now, anyway. All defaults can change, with supported counter-examples.
>
> But I will leave it at that. This site is about
> CAS and his work, and should be a haven from
> ideological clashes.
>
> > the
> > unsettling aspect can be very transitory--just
> for
> > the amount of time I'm reading it and maybe a
> > little beyond. It is not necessary to be deeply
> or
> > lastingly unsettling
> rol
> I agree with you once again, amigo. Some stories
> haunt you forever, while some are like that
> super-sour or spicy candy your friends talked you
> into trying when you were nine[1]. Who here
> remembers Fireball candy? Ay, chihuahua!
>
> [1] Actually, for me it was a classmate who
> insisted that while we sucked on Dracula-brand
> lollipops, “a film of Dracula would appear on
> the wallâ€. What a disappointment that was…
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11 Jul 21 | 02:59PM by Sawfish.