I’m probably never going to understand at all how the politically illiterate equate us and fascists. We don’t point at anything secret going on, we outline how these exact circumstances lead to these outcomes. We’re not talking about shadowy capitalists or secret plans of world domination
I think there's a subset of the population that has a hard time believing that anyone could actually think this, perhaps largely because they find the idea of history being driven by material conditions, systemic forces, and accidents to be existentially horrifying. For that group of people, there's a fundamental assumption that both sides must think someone is pulling the strings, and when we criticize capitalism as a system (and specific capitalists for their specific actions), they assume that we must really be just obliquely referring to the same kind of cabal that the far right appeals to. The alternative--that the trajectory of history isn't controlled by anyone at all--is the kind of mind-shatteringly terrifying idea that some people just have a really hard time even entertaining.
this is probably also why liberals believe they can save society by simply placing the correct people in the correct roles, to safeguard any abuses from happening. Liberals also believe in a cabal of secret interests, but they see it as everyone who holds incorrect ideas in their heads. The racist old man down the street is viewed as equally influential in world affairs as Trump himself, because they're both part of the same group of incorrect racists. They're the ones who manifest the thoughtforms with their worldviews. So if worldviews change by elevating people with good, liberal ideas, then that spreads a curative medicine within the thought realm, making society inherently better.
Our claim that people develop their ideology not purely on what they're told and taught, but rather, their experiences and position in the world, to them sounds like we don't believe in human agency. They must necessarily believe you can teach the rich out of their greed, that simple awareness is enough. It's because like you said, many liberals would have to examine why they hold liberal values in the first place. They'd have to question if they benefit from imperialism or poverty
Great observation about human agency. I think this kind of thing also explains the fixation that certain :jordan-eboy-peterson: people have on "postmodernism" as well, and why they see it as basically the same thing as Marxism. The idea is that both ideologies see individuals as merely being a confluence of social categories and forces, with actual agentive action existing only around the margins. This is a sort of failure of imagination, I think--they can't see how there might be room for individual agency while also rejecting Great Man Theory. They think that our denial of the claim that history is driven by a small number of Atlases shrugging at key moments also amounts to a denial that anyone can ever do anything.
I think there's a subset of the population that has a hard time believing that anyone could actually think this, perhaps largely because they find the idea of history being driven by material conditions, systemic forces, and accidents to be existentially horrifying. For that group of people, there's a fundamental assumption that both sides must think someone is pulling the strings, and when we criticize capitalism as a system (and specific capitalists for their specific actions), they assume that we must really be just obliquely referring to the same kind of cabal that the far right appeals to. The alternative--that the trajectory of history isn't controlled by anyone at all--is the kind of mind-shatteringly terrifying idea that some people just have a really hard time even entertaining.
this is probably also why liberals believe they can save society by simply placing the correct people in the correct roles, to safeguard any abuses from happening. Liberals also believe in a cabal of secret interests, but they see it as everyone who holds incorrect ideas in their heads. The racist old man down the street is viewed as equally influential in world affairs as Trump himself, because they're both part of the same group of incorrect racists. They're the ones who manifest the thoughtforms with their worldviews. So if worldviews change by elevating people with good, liberal ideas, then that spreads a curative medicine within the thought realm, making society inherently better.
Our claim that people develop their ideology not purely on what they're told and taught, but rather, their experiences and position in the world, to them sounds like we don't believe in human agency. They must necessarily believe you can teach the rich out of their greed, that simple awareness is enough. It's because like you said, many liberals would have to examine why they hold liberal values in the first place. They'd have to question if they benefit from imperialism or poverty
Great observation about human agency. I think this kind of thing also explains the fixation that certain :jordan-eboy-peterson: people have on "postmodernism" as well, and why they see it as basically the same thing as Marxism. The idea is that both ideologies see individuals as merely being a confluence of social categories and forces, with actual agentive action existing only around the margins. This is a sort of failure of imagination, I think--they can't see how there might be room for individual agency while also rejecting Great Man Theory. They think that our denial of the claim that history is driven by a small number of Atlases shrugging at key moments also amounts to a denial that anyone can ever do anything.