The Ethical vs the Aesthetic

[confused2]

Extremists like extreme points of view.
"You only have to look at Pol Pot to see what happens when you have universal health care."

No, you only have to look at the UK to see what happens when you have universal healthcare.

Yes, the UK’s universal healthcare system, the National Health Service (NHS), is associated with significant wait times for non-urgent elective procedures and specialized care, often characterized as a form of care rationing by demand rather than cost. Currently, over 7 million people are on waiting lists, with severe strain causing some patients to face delays of over a year.
- Gemini

I suspect deep in US psyche they still see themselves as invaders. The weak don't matter because they aren't the ones that will build a better/stronger country - they are to be discarded. The argument from the left isn't about anything reasonable (it isn't) .. it's about not being discarded.

You mean the people who are able to work but just don't?
Those are the only ones US conservatives have no empathy for. Is it inherent weakness that these people would rather sit around all day smoking pot, being criminals, etc. instead of being the least bit productive?

Again with the extreme .. for healthcare the US comes 15 (of 20) and the UK isn't even in the list.
https://www.internationalinsurance.com/health/systems/

Is it just about people who are able to work but don't? Nothing to do with money (territory), power and guns?

[Syne]

Extremists like extreme points of view.
"You only have to look at Pol Pot to see what happens when you have universal health care."

No, you only have to look at the UK to see what happens when you have universal healthcare.

Yes, the UK’s universal healthcare system, the National Health Service (NHS), is associated with significant wait times for non-urgent elective procedures and specialized care, often characterized as a form of care rationing by demand rather than cost. Currently, over 7 million people are on waiting lists, with severe strain causing some patients to face delays of over a year.
- Gemini

I suspect deep in US psyche they still see themselves as invaders. The weak don't matter because they aren't the ones that will build a better/stronger country - they are to be discarded. The argument from the left isn't about anything reasonable (it isn't) .. it's about not being discarded.

You mean the people who are able to work but just don't?
Those are the only ones US conservatives have no empathy for. Is it inherent weakness that these people would rather sit around all day smoking pot, being criminals, etc. instead of being the least bit productive?

Again with the extreme .. for healthcare the US comes 15 (of 20) and the UK isn't even in the list.
https://www.internationalinsurance.com/health/systems/

Is it just about people who are able to work but don't? Nothing to do with money (territory), power and guns?

You mean with the US absorbing drug R&D costs the rest of the world doesn't pay?
Territory? We're a single country the size of all of Europe. Money? We're the world largest economy. Power? We're the worlds greatest superpower. Guns? We have all the guns. What more is there to want but people to quit being lazy leeches?

[geordief]

I've recently observed that the difference between a conservative and a liberal is not so much that of values vs no values as it is a difference in the KIND of values. Conservatives as a general rule are driven to see their world and their lives in terms of ethical values like right vs wrong, heroic vs villainous, and good vs evil.

Liberals otoh tend to base their worldview on aesthetic values like beauty vs ugliness, creativity vs banality, and love vs hate. Two different value systems molding how they think and experience their world.

Can we really say one is better than the other? That a person should strive above all things to be good and diligent and upstanding? Or that they should only strive to find joy and peace and contentment in their lives? Not really. Both outlooks shape our society and work together to form who we are as a culture and a nation.

Fortunately for us, we are NOT destined to be so permanently divided. We have much to learn from each other. Despite our seemingly irreconcilable differences, there IS in my view a middle ground where we can agree and meet. And it is beautifully expressed in this poem excerpt by Naomi Shihab Nye:

"Before you know kindness as the deepest thing inside,
you must know sorrow as the other deepest thing.
You must wake up with sorrow.
You must speak to it till your voice
catches the thread of all sorrows
and you see the size of the cloth.
Then it is only kindness that makes sense anymore,
only kindness that ties your shoes
and sends you out into the day to mail letters and purchase bread,
only kindness that raises its head
from the crowd of the world to say
It is I you have been looking for,
and then goes with you everywhere
like a shadow or a friend."

How might this play out in the arts?

Are  there artists whose work is intrinsically repressive dishonest   and others who are inclusive and expressive of shared feelings?

I think independent  artists are not a given and most play to an audience that might just be financial advantage ,wherever that might come from.

The Nazis and the Fascists had  their own aesthetic  that has not been lost on the current regime in the US.

So is art in the mix when it comes to human values and expressions and can it credibly claim any "observer" status at all?

[Magical Realist]

Syne said: When the means always end up the same, the purported ends are just lies sharing the same motive. To centralize power to the government over the freedom of the people.

Nothing there about fascism being leftist. True fascism springs from a specific ideology, not as if by accident. Everybody with any knowledge of history knows fascism and fascist groups are rightwing in their values and ideology. You don't get to make up shit just to justify your own rightwing views.

"Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement that rose to prominence in early-20th-century Europe. Fascism is characterized by support for a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived interest of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. Opposed to communism, democracy, liberalism, pluralism, and socialism, fascism is at the far-right of the traditional left–right spectrum."--- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

[confused2]

.. Money? We're the world largest economy. Power? We're the worlds greatest superpower. Guns? We have all the guns. ..

And for healthcare .. 15th of the top 20 .. which says much about the US psyche. Rich in some ways, poor in others.

[geordief]

.. Money? We're the world largest economy. Power? We're the worlds greatest superpower. Guns? We have all the guns. ..

And for healthcare .. 15th of the top 20 .. which says much about the US psyche. Rich in some ways, poor in others.

Must rank pretty highly in "don't give a shit about others " and "poor victim me" table at the  moment.

Has Netanyahu whispered in someone's ear about the Samson Doctrine?

[Magical Realist]

[quote="Magical Realist" pid="84327" dateline="1776970820"]
I've recently observed that the difference between a conservative and a liberal is not so much that of values vs no values as it is a difference in the KIND of values. Conservatives as a general rule are driven to see their world and their lives in terms of ethical values like right vs wrong, heroic vs villainous, and good vs evil.

Liberals otoh tend to base their worldview on aesthetic values like beauty vs ugliness, creativity vs banality, and love vs hate. Two different value systems molding how they think and experience their world.

Can we really say one is better than the other? That a person should strive above all things to be good and diligent and upstanding? Or that they should only strive to find joy and peace and contentment in their lives? Not really. Both outlooks shape our society and work together to form who we are as a culture and a nation.

Fortunately for us, we are NOT destined to be so permanently divided. We have much to learn from each other. Despite our seemingly irreconcilable differences, there IS in my view a middle ground where we can agree and meet. And it is beautifully expressed in this poem excerpt by Naomi Shihab Nye:

"Before you know kindness as the deepest thing inside,
you must know sorrow as the other deepest thing.
You must wake up with sorrow.
You must speak to it till your voice
catches the thread of all sorrows
and you see the size of the cloth.
Then it is only kindness that makes sense anymore,
only kindness that ties your shoes
and sends you out into the day to mail letters and purchase bread,
only kindness that raises its head
from the crowd of the world to say
It is I you have been looking for,
and then goes with you everywhere
like a shadow or a friend."

How might this play out in the arts?

Are  there artists whose work is intrinsically repressive dishonest   and others who are inclusive and expressive of shared feelings?

YES! In the former case we call them ad executives. In the latter? Poets! lol

I think independent  artists are not a given and most play to an audience that might just be financial advantage ,wherever that might come from.

I agree. Many great artists were not appreciated at all in their day. But that didn't stop them even though they lived in poverty. Van Gogh was one of those. Nowadays the trope of the "starving artist" who paints for himself rather than for a general audience seems to have faded away, replaced now with a more diverse and cyber-present population where such artists can usually find their own lucrative niche crowd.

The Nazis and the Fascists had  their own aesthetic  that has not been lost on the current regime in the US.

Their aesthetic seems/seemed limited to emblems of nationalist and Aryan power--the eagle, the swastika, the iron cross, the SS lightning bolts. A sort of aesthetic of ascetic Nordic "hardness on oneself" or a "spirituality" of supreme willpower which was also expressed thru Nietzsche and Schopenhauer.

So is art in the mix when it comes to human values and expressions and can it credibly claim any "observer" status at all?

I believe so. But traditionally art and film and literature and music have been the domains of liberals and bohemians. And traditionally it is the ethical conservatives who always tried and still try to suppress such free expression thru censorship, book banning, review bombing, and obscenity laws. But not in all cases. I would imagine, due to universally accessible media sources, that there are now many less moralistic conservatives who appreciate these creative genres just as much as liberals do. TRUE conservatives and not these MAGA imposters. The cultured wealthy ones who appreciate Mozart instead of Kid Rock!

[Syne]

Syne said: When the means always end up the same, the purported ends are just lies sharing the same motive. To centralize power to the government over the freedom of the people.

Nothing there about fascism being leftist. True fascism springs from a specific ideology, not as if by accident. Everybody with any knowledge of history knows fascism and fascist groups are rightwing in their values and ideology. You don't get to make up shit just to justify your own rightwing views.

Yet Nazis were the national socialist party.

Yes, the Nazis were officially members of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or NSDAP). However, historians generally agree that the party did not embrace socialism as it is commonly defined—such as collective ownership of the means of production—in any significant sense.
Instead, Nazism was a far-right, ultranationalist, and fascist ideology that used the term "socialist" to appeal to the working class during the party's early years, while ultimately opposing Marxist socialism, communism, and equality.
- Gemini

We see this bait and switch repeatedly in history, from Germany to Italy to Iran, etc..

And where we get the term "fascism":

Benito Mussolini did not promise a traditional "socialist utopia" in the Marxist sense. Instead, he originally promised a nationalist, revolutionary form of socialism (often termed national syndicalism) that aimed to unite all Italian classes into a disciplined, productive state rather than eliminating class distinctions through international revolution.
However, this promise changed significantly over time, transitioning from a radical leftist vision to a fascist model that upheld private property while placing the state in total control of the economy
- Gemini

The common thread is the centralization of power to the government. People seeking totalitarian power will tell people whatever they want to hear to accomplish that goal.
"It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.” - Frank Herbert
This is why the true political spectrum is power vs freedom.

---

.. Money? We're the world largest economy. Power? We're the worlds greatest superpower. Guns? We have all the guns. ..

And for healthcare .. 15th of the top 20 .. which says much about the US psyche. Rich in some ways, poor in others.

Aw, couldn't bear to acknowledge the US shouldering more medication costs, which is factored into that ranking? You benefit from cheaper drugs when Americans pay more. Just another leech.

[Magical Realist]

Yet Nazis were the national socialist party.

In name only. Not in their rightwing fascist ideology:

AI overview:

"The Nazis were not socialists in any traditional or economic sense, according to Britannica and Western University. While the party name included "Socialist," their ideology was defined by extreme nationalism, anti-Semitism, and fascism. They targeted, imprisoned, and killed socialists and communists, and they were fundamentally a far-right movement.

Opposition to Socialism: As explained by Reddit users, Hitler explicitly rejected Marxist socialism, which focuses on class struggle, in favor of a racist nationalism that focused on a "national community"

Destruction of Socialist Organizations: Upon taking power, the Nazis dismantled trade unions, banned all competing political parties, and targeted socialists and communists for concentration camps.

"Socialist" in Name Only: The "socialist" label was largely opportunistic, aimed at attracting working-class support. Hitler himself later admitted his definition of socialism had nothing to do with Marxian socialism.

Economic Control: While the state did exert control over the economy, it was aimed at rearmament and war preparation, not communal ownership or redistribution."

And by the time Mussolini came into power, he despised and rejected Marxist socialism, founding his ideology of rightwing fascism:

"Benito Mussolini was a prominent socialist early in his career, acting as a revolutionary journalist and editor of the Italian Socialist Party's newspaper, Avanti!. However, he broke with the movement in 1914 over his support for World War I, later creating fascism as a nationalist, anti-socialist ideology that replaced class struggle with state-directed corporate capitalism.

Key details regarding Mussolini's political evolution:

Early Socialist Life: Born into a socialist family, Mussolini wrote for socialist periodicals and was imprisoned for his activities in 1911. He was seen as a revolutionary socialist with anarchistic roots.

Split from Socialism: In 1914, he was expelled from the Italian Socialist Party for supporting Italy's entry into World War I, breaking with the party's official policy of neutrality.

Evolution to Fascism: Following the war, he abandoned Marxist class struggle for nationalist, militaristic ideas, founding the National Fascist Party in 1919.

Opposition to Socialists: As a fascist leader, he became staunchly anti-socialist and anti-communist, though some of his later economic policies—such as nationalizing industries and controlling private business—retained elements of state control similar to command economies."

[Syne]

"As explained by Reddit users" LOL 9_9