6 ms·

Peter Thiel's "Mein Kampf" excludes women and minorities, who he feels have "damaged" democracy: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-

by t1m 10y ago

Peter Thiel's "Mein Kampf" excludes women and minorities, who he feels have "damaged" democracy: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

yolesaber 10y ago
"Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron." Wow. That is...troubling
- gohrt 10y ago
  Why? Welfare beneficiaries and women lean socialist, and vote socialist. They believe that's good. Thiel believes that's bad.
  - yolesaber 10y ago
    Tens of million of women just voted for a conservative billionaire populist.
    - t1m 10y ago
      Tens of millions of people are going out to the street and are not going to let these little goons take over America.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - confounded 10y ago
    And that tension is called a democracy.
  - walshemj 10y ago
    Not in the UK women tend to vote tory more than the male population did.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  If Thiel explicitly said "hence, women shouldn't vote" it would be bad. As it stands, he didn't.
defgeneric 10y ago
As a Marxist, I actually agree with his point here. Of course he was being provocative but I don't think malicious, not by any means. He did not mean women should not have been given the vote. And "welfare beneficiaries" actually doesn't refer to minorities there (although they'd be included among the beneficiaries of the New Deal). What he said and meant, translated into Leftist language, is that it was clear by the 1920s that there was no longer any hope for resolving the crisis of bourgeois democracy. In other words, democracy and capitalism had become contradictory, incompatible. That's true, and had been true long before 1920, but the concept of history he articulates isn't totally incorrect. At least he thinks. It is worth noting that the 1920s was also the decade when the German Left collapsed, all but sealing the fate of the October Revolution with it. Theil misrecognizes history when he blames the failure of the bourgeois revolution on politics, but he isn't wrong to recognize the importance of the bourgeois revolution. He just doesn't go far enough--only the socialist revolution could fulfill the promises of the bourgeois revolution (Great French Revolution). I give a sort of point-by-point critique of his essay here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12928487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12928487
- carapace 10y ago
  But even if you accept that "democracy and capitalism had become contradictory, incompatible" Theil favors the latter over the former. Bad feels ensue.
tomp 10y ago
You're just posting bullshit lies about Thiel everywhere you can. He said it pretty explicitly: > It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away or that this would solve the political problems that vex us. While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better. He also points out that the "most intense reaction" was to the factual "commonplace statistical observation about voting patterns that is often called the gender gap". Lying is one of the main reasons the Democrats lost. Learn something from their failure.
- fenx 10y ago
  > Lying is one of the main reasons the Democrats lost. One of the main reasons the Democrats lost is because white women voted more than expected for Trump, much in contrast to Thiels views. There's nothing supporting that Clinton made more factually incorrect statements than Trump, in fact the opposite is true.
- carapace 10y ago
  "Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible." He prefers "freedom" over democracy. He wants to disenfranchise anyone who votes against his ideas of freedom. This is not good, eh?

by t1m 10y ago

yolesaber 10y ago

"Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron." Wow. That is...troubling

gohrt 10y ago
Why? Welfare beneficiaries and women lean socialist, and vote socialist. They believe that's good. Thiel believes that's bad.
- yolesaber 10y ago
  Tens of million of women just voted for a conservative billionaire populist.
  - t1m 10y ago
    Tens of millions of people are going out to the street and are not going to let these little goons take over America.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- confounded 10y ago
  And that tension is called a democracy.
- walshemj 10y ago
  Not in the UK women tend to vote tory more than the male population did.
Chris2048 10y ago
If Thiel explicitly said "hence, women shouldn't vote" it would be bad. As it stands, he didn't.

defgeneric 10y ago

As a Marxist, I actually agree with his point here. Of course he was being provocative but I don't think malicious, not by any means. He did not mean women should not have been given the vote. And "welfare beneficiaries" actually doesn't refer to minorities there (although they'd be included among the beneficiaries of the New Deal). What he said and meant, translated into Leftist language, is that it was clear by the 1920s that there was no longer any hope for resolving the crisis of bourgeois democracy. In other words, democracy and capitalism had become contradictory, incompatible. That's true, and had been true long before 1920, but the concept of history he articulates isn't totally incorrect. At least he thinks. It is worth noting that the 1920s was also the decade when the German Left collapsed, all but sealing the fate of the October Revolution with it. Theil misrecognizes history when he blames the failure of the bourgeois revolution on politics, but he isn't wrong to recognize the importance of the bourgeois revolution. He just doesn't go far enough--only the socialist revolution could fulfill the promises of the bourgeois revolution (Great French Revolution). I give a sort of point-by-point critique of his essay here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12928487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12928487

carapace 10y ago
But even if you accept that "democracy and capitalism had become contradictory, incompatible" Theil favors the latter over the former. Bad feels ensue.

tomp 10y ago

You're just posting bullshit lies about Thiel everywhere you can. He said it pretty explicitly: > It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away or that this would solve the political problems that vex us. While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better. He also points out that the "most intense reaction" was to the factual "commonplace statistical observation about voting patterns that is often called the gender gap". Lying is one of the main reasons the Democrats lost. Learn something from their failure.

fenx 10y ago
> Lying is one of the main reasons the Democrats lost. One of the main reasons the Democrats lost is because white women voted more than expected for Trump, much in contrast to Thiels views. There's nothing supporting that Clinton made more factually incorrect statements than Trump, in fact the opposite is true.
carapace 10y ago
"Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible." He prefers "freedom" over democracy. He wants to disenfranchise anyone who votes against his ideas of freedom. This is not good, eh?