Posted by turtleman on July 13, 2019, 4:24 am, in reply to "Peterson on Orwell"
the idea that we must all co-operate and see to it that everyone does his fair share of the work and gets his fair share of the provisions, seems so blatantly obvious that one would say that nobody could possibly fail to accept it unless he had some corrupt motive for clinging to the present system. […]
Peterson does not argue against cooperation, does not argue against doing one's fair share, does not argue against fair earnings and the basic safety net. Peterson does not 'cling' to the present system, but simply identifies the salvageable bits, and the root cultural values for which we should be grateful and should build on rather than destroy (which the modern left is doing in their radical anti-capitalist, anti-Western, anti-Patriarchy zeal).
Yes, Orwell is straight-forward and clear. So is Marx. But others read into, through, and past them. Orwell writes, "Socialism is such elementary common sense that I am sometimes amazed it has not established itself already." A romantic through and through, mistaking his own childish naivety for 'elementary common sense'. Life is not free anywhere. ALL life must come to the sun as much as, if not more than, the sun to it! This is Natural Law! In failing to see this, socialists approach actual inequity and injustice incorrectly and tip the scales to its equal and opposite damnation. A pity, because 1984, and especially Animal Farm, have real value. But Huxley was a superior intellect who gave us Brave New World, a much more psychologically accurate prophesy that recognizes intrinsic weakness of man which gives rise to the symbiotic relationship between Concentrated Power and the average person (masses). Such insights invite us to move towards deeper self-knowledge and transformation, rather than externalizing the whole problem onto the state or other worldly power.
Peterson does not misread Orwell. He reads into him, like he reads into Marx.
And it has to also be said: none of this is to say Orwell was bad, Marx was bad, Rousseau was bad, etc. It's just to say that they all miss a huge part of the puzzle.
No question, things are bad. Real bad. But we must resist the temptation to rush towards Left idols or cling to Sacred Cows like socialism. WHY are things so bad? Orwell gets it wrong. Marx gets it wrong. Rousseau gets it wrong. They all get what's wrong, but they get the why part of it wrong, and therefore lead us to the wrong solutions. The only one, so far, that seems to have really given us the truth about it is Jesus Christ. That's why they crucified him, and why the right hijack and abuse him, and why the world by and large reject him (esp. the left).