|
|
|
Champion
 
Group: Eos Staff
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 1:03 PM
Posts: 333,
Visits: 1,437
|
|
Shven (4/4/2008)
[quote]The idea that the government couldn't implement this without it leading to forced unemployment and labour camps is paranoid and ridiculous.Indeed, and entirely not what I suggested. Job-creation schemes by the state have led to forced labour in the past. This is undeniable. I have no problem with the kinda social-good "volunteer work" you suggest (kinda like community service for non-criminals) although a part of me worries about pointless make-work, for reasons I'm not entirely sure of.
---
Joe Rooney
Insurrection LRP: high fantasy in a dystopian setting. First event: 24-26 October 2008, in Leicestershire. Book online before August 1st for maximum discount!
Bladelands: Raoul Ortez, dubious scumbag, and Alessandro the deathknight
EOS: staff
Joe R's LARPCard
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 5:03 PM
Posts: 1,897,
Visits: 7,852
|
|
theshoveller (4/4/2008)
I'm not trying to. Libertarianism winds me up to the extent that I can't be unbiased. Coupled with that, I'm always wary of those who claim objectivity - I think that objective analysis is an ideal to be strived for, rather than a goal to be obtained.
Yes, I grasp that - what I'm saying isn't "You're not perfectly objective" but "You don't seem to even be striving for objectivity" - in which it's kind of futile for me to try to push for a less subjective response.
theshoveller (4/4/2008)
Now I just plain don't agree with that. If that explanation were modified to 'often expresses itself as an authoritarian practice' then I would be more sympathetic. One of the key features of most fascist ideologies is the idea that leadership belongs in the hands of superior individuals, that power exists to be taken rather than granted. It's clever in a way, because it justifies both revolution and oppression - only the exercise of power matters (although if we go too far down that path, it gets a bit Foucauldian).
Sounds like you're just broadening the definition so that more of the people you don't like are in the same box with Hitler. Again, by saying that it's some broad thing, which happens to sometimes express itself in certain observables decouples the definition from anything observable - kind of Freudian. I could say that you are a fascist - you may not be doing anything authoritarian, you may not be part of a mass-movement, you may not be arguing for national unity - but I know that you _are_ a fascist, therefor absence of evidence is simply evidence of suppression/sublimation.
Again, your key feature - that leadership belongs in the hands of superior individuals and that power exists to be taken rather than granted - represents all political systems except utopian ones. Democracies rely on the idea that the demos chooses someone over someone else - i.e. they judge someone superior. Almost all modern states are founded through some assertion of force (even if they never have to use it) - their borders are still defined by the fact that they can put guys on them (or that someone else with troops defined their borders for them). Even the fluffiest of modern democracies still requires you have some mechanism of defining the borders of your (immediate) power.
theshoveller (4/4/2008)
It is very rarely disputed that fascist (or at least, Nazi) ideology leans heavily on Neitzsche - you only need to look at the linguistic congruity ('Triumph of the will', superman/ubermensch etc).
We're drifting further off the topic, but I think you've largely put your finger on the only correlation between Nietzsche and mainstream Nazi ideology (i.e. his sister/brother-in-law popularised one or two terms largely out of context). Nietzsche was a filthy anti-authoritarian peacenik who ended his days out of an ayslum by running up and hugging a horse that was being whipped. To suggest that he is to the Nazis what Marx was to the Communists is to dramatically inflate his relevance. You might as well point at Martin Luther - he was German _and_ an anti-semite - or, indeed, any of the romantic counter-Enlightenment writers in Germany and England. There's much more intellectual congruency between the romantic movement (which Nietzsche abandoned when he got sick of Wagner) and the Nazi movement.
theshoveller (4/4/2008)
Experiment with what? I'm not following. I'm not saying he was 'ignorant' either - I'm saying he was deliberately ignoring the logical extent of his argument, which isn't the same thing. I'm not saying anything that Orwell didn't say about Hayek in 1944.
Yes, that's what I mean - I don't think there's any reason to think that he was _ignoring_ the logical extent of his argument, given what he lived through and every reason to think that the he wouldn't have agreed with you or Orwell (for a start - whose concept of right and wrong? Mine or yours? If it's yours, why should I have to live under it - why not mine?).
George Orwell Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war. Collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader worship, and war.
I've been in dole queues - I don't think they really stand comparison with concentration camps! I'm sure Hayek grasped the idea that Capitalism wasn't perfect in the sense of providing 'total happiness' to all (how many liberal capitalist states have gone to war with eachother? I'm not sure I buy Kant's idea that they can't, but I don't think you can pretend that there isn't a disparity) - I just don't think he believed in the these transcendent visions (sure - the last revolution to purify humanity may have lead to bloodshed, horror and misery - but the _next one_ will get it right!).
I'm not saying that you must agree with him, but saying he's wrong because he's ignoring a truth that you're aware of is a bit unfair.
[quote] George Orwell There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with the freedom of the intellect, which can only happen if the concept of right and wrong is restored to politics.
This is the clincher - Orwell seems to have faith this is true, Hayek doesn't. It's necessarily a statement of faith, so you can't rule one of them 'aware of the truth'/'ignoring the truth'. If you differ in faith, fair enough, but I don't think you have to judge the consistency of the beliefs of both parties in terms of what _they_ believe.
theshoveller (4/4/2008)
It's popular because it's easy.
I'm not disagreeing with that - I'm just disagreeing with the suggestion that Thatcher and Reagan are comparable to Hitler/Lenin/Stalin. Dole queues suck - but not quite so much as concentration camps.
theshoveller (4/4/2008)
I'd also argue that Russia's current problems (and its problems for the past fifteen years) are a result of rampant liberalisation/deregulation circa 1991. Russia traded a oligarchic state with little public accountability for an autocratic state with none, via a period of anarcho-capitalism.
That may be, but it's hard to say whether that's a comment on 'anarcho-capitalism' or Russia (after all, liberal capitalism doesn't seem to lead to anything like comparable issues in other countries - which was what I was trying to get across - which rather implies it's not a liberal capitalist issue, it's a collapsing state/power vacuum issue (which seems to be supported in comparative studies with other collapsing states and the fact that it seems to be reducing as power is centralised with Tsar Putin).
theshoveller (4/4/2008)
What do you consider a 'real' economic/political model? I think liberal capitalism comes off exceedingly poorly against any truly social democratic country (such as Sweden, but its true of most of Scandanavia and parts of Western Europe).
Real as 'real world'. It's sort of pointless to say "Capitalism is evil, it causes suffering - a utopian socialist economy would cause no suffering, therefore we should substitute one for the other immediately" as people often seem to do.
Again, earlier you were talking about collectivist states - like Communism/Fascism - now you're talking about places like Sweden. Certainly Sweden and West Europe are several large steps to the left of America - but that doesn't mean that they are Communist/collectivist! They are still liberal capitalist - Sweden, I understand, is economically liberal (albeit with a solid welfare system). Also, I think I've already covered this in a previous post:
In which, I think they come off looking quite good - there are some countries - places like Sweden with very low population density and lots of natural resources - which, I think, did quite well all throughout the 20th century - but otherwise I think liberal Capitalist America/Britain was a much nicer place to be than, say, East Germany.
It's a bit like Norway - I was talking to a Norwegian a long time ago who was expressing disgust at the homeless problem in Britain. I assumed that they had some sort of expensive state system to deal with it - she explained that the Norwegian climate meant that being homeless meant being dead. So if you're in a nasty situation at home, you find another home to get away to - you don't leave home and take to the streets unless you're suicidal. For that reason, I don't think it's reasonable to compare the British homeless problem with the Norwegian homeless problem.
Ditto, if a state has only one serious natural resource, I'm not convinced that liberal capitalism is better than a state monopoly (i.e. Venezuela). But I don't think that has implications for developed countries with no dominating single natural resources/multiple exports.
theshoveller (4/4/2008)
I'll have to concede a little there, but his cosiness with the right-wing establishment (see his list of honours) leaves a lot to be desired. Also, neo-liberalist capitalism isn't all that conservative. It just benefits existing conservatives more than most.
I'm not convinced that Hayek is in a similar position to Marx because people suffer under capitalism - if you're trying to say that someone is morally responsible for causing suffering, then I think you need to give a serious (i.e. not I believe that if everyone were socialist all suffering would evaporate) alternative that is grounded in some real observation. Saying that America should be remodelled on Sweden ignores the fact of Sweden's natural resources relative to their low population density - I don't know how significant this is, but it's dramatic enough to make me leery of direct comparisons. If you were to point at France, instead of Sweden, then I think it's hard to say which country is better off (America's economy is generally much more perky than France, but France has a 78% nuclear electricity grid which supplies quite a lot of the European states which reject nuclear power - one state which doesn't need to worry about how to keep people warm if the gas stops flowing).
theshoveller (4/4/2008)
Actually, as I've got older I've developed a more open mind. Beyond a few basic articles of faith (a belief in co-operation over competition, for example) I don't subscribe seriously to any political philosophy.
It's kind of hard to comment on how open your own mind is - on the one hand, old 'truths' may have been abandoned, on the other hand new 'basic articles' may have become entrenched.
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Champion
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 9:56 AM
Posts: 273,
Visits: 842
|
|
Marios (4/4/2008)
Yes, I grasp that - what I'm saying isn't "You're not perfectly objective" but "You don't seem to even be striving for objectivity" - in which it's kind of futile for me to try to push for a less subjective response. Why do you feel the need to push me?
Sounds like you're just broadening the definition so that more of the people you don't like are in the same box with Hitler. Again, by saying that it's some broad thing, which happens to sometimes express itself in certain observables decouples the definition from anything observable - kind of Freudian. I could say that you are a fascist - you may not be doing anything authoritarian, you may not be part of a mass-movement, you may not be arguing for national unity - but I know that you _are_ a fascist, therefor absence of evidence is simply evidence of suppression/sublimation.
I'm not saying it's a broad thing, I'm saying that the ideological root cause I'm describing leads to something like the definition you've taken from wikipedia. That's actually very specific, because it differentiates fascism from other populist authoritarian philosophies. Of course, I'm now looking at my Penguin Dictionary of Politics which claims "There is no coherent body of political doctrine that can be attributed to fascism" so this discussion may continue to go around in circles.
Again, your key feature - that leadership belongs in the hands of superior individuals and that power exists to be taken rather than granted - represents all political systems except utopian ones. Democracies rely on the idea that the demos chooses someone over someone else - i.e. they judge someone superior. Err... no they don't. Democracies elect representatives - someone like themselves to advance their interests. When you elect someone, you are expressing the belief that they will represent your interests better than the other person, not that they are superior to you. In an Athenian democracy, moreover, the choice of representative was entirely arbitrary.
We're drifting further off the topic, but I think you've largely put your finger on the only correlation between Nietzsche and mainstream Nazi ideology (i.e. his sister/brother-in-law popularised one or two terms largely out of context). Nietzsche was a filthy anti-authoritarian peacenik who ended his days out of an ayslum by running up and hugging a horse that was being whipped. To suggest that he is to the Nazis what Marx was to the Communists is to dramatically inflate his relevance. I didn't suggest anything of the sort. Those reading closely will have noted my earlier description of Nietzsche as a philosopher who had no opportunity to condemn his disciples. I mentioned Marx in the same sentence because he might have felt similarly about his (although Marx was a critic of Marxism - he felt many of his successors had missed the point). But, to follow your original point, how the Nazis assimilated Nietzsche's philosophy is not all that relevant here. They certainly thought he agreed with them. There must be significant common ground, else it wouldn't have caught on. That isn't a slur on Nietzsche, merely an example of cultural/philosophical appropriation.
Yes, that's what I mean - I don't think there's any reason to think that he was _ignoring_ the logical extent of his argument, given what he lived through and every reason to think that the he wouldn't have agreed with you or Orwell (for a start - whose concept of right and wrong? Mine or yours? If it's yours, why should I have to live under it - why not mine?). You forget that I'm sympathetic to anarcho-communism. I have no particular desire to make you live under any system of mine.
George Orwell Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war. Collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader worship, and war.
I've been in dole queues - I don't think they really stand comparison with concentration camps! That's terribly disingenuous. You know perfectly well that Orwell is using 'dole queues' as a metonym for global recession, which encompasses poverty and starvation (i.e. the Great Depression). I'm not disagreeing with that - I'm just disagreeing with the suggestion that Thatcher and Reagan are comparable to Hitler/Lenin/Stalin. Dole queues suck - but not quite so much as concentration camps. They aren't comparable. First of all, I don't think you should lump Hitler, Lenin and Stalin together. While there may be superficial similarities, the ideological differences are so glaring as to make comparison meaningless. But are Reagan and Thatcher comparable to Hitler? No. But they have much in common, albeit at a different order of magnitude.
That may be, but it's hard to say whether that's a comment on 'anarcho-capitalism' or Russia (after all, liberal capitalism doesn't seem to lead to anything like comparable issues in other countries - which was what I was trying to get across - which rather implies it's not a liberal capitalist issue, it's a collapsing state/power vacuum issue (which seems to be supported in comparative studies with other collapsing states and the fact that it seems to be reducing as power is centralised with Tsar Putin). What I'm getting at is that Putin-style centralisation is likely to follow a period of anarcho-capitalism. As in a lot of cases, we have a failing state that is forced to 'modernise' through wholesale, rapid deregulation. Anarcho-capitalism can only really occur in a power vacuum anyway - it's anarchic.
Again, earlier you were talking about collectivist states - like Communism/Fascism - now you're talking about places like Sweden. Certainly Sweden and West Europe are several large steps to the left of America - but that doesn't mean that they are Communist/collectivist! They are still liberal capitalist - Sweden, I understand, is economically liberal (albeit with a solid welfare system). You got a very funny definition of 'liberal capitalist'. I haven't even suggested that Sweden is a Communist state. You seem to believe that any state that isn't wholly collectivist, must be liberal capitalist. The Scandanavian states aren't - they're social democratic nations. Equally, a nation like Japan defies definition as 'liberal capitalist' because, while capitalist, it isn't very liberal. Neither is Russia (although for different reasons).
Ditto, if a state has only one serious natural resource, I'm not convinced that liberal capitalism is better than a state monopoly (i.e. Venezuela). But I don't think that has implications for developed countries with no dominating single natural resources/multiple exports. But can you actually think of any? By and large, nation states are built around some form of natural resource - that's why they're nation states, rather than protectorates of somewhere else (and bringing up micro-states like Andorra or the Vatican makes the argument absurd).
I'm not convinced that Hayek is in a similar position to Marx because people suffer under capitalism - if you're trying to say that someone is morally responsible for causing suffering, then I think you need to give a serious (i.e. not I believe that if everyone were socialist all suffering would evaporate) alternative that is grounded in some real observation. Huh? Are you trying to suggest that a philosopher can't be held responsible for the uses their work is put to? I'm not suggesting Hayek should be held responsible for those suffering under capitalism. I'm suggesting that Hayek should be held responsible for suffering caused by changes to the economic system by capitalist governments that adhered to his philosophy (i.e. Reagan and Thatcher). That doesn't seem terribly controversial.
-- -- -- Eos: Manius Shard, Shard tank commander FnH: Officious Guard no.1
|
|
|
|
|
Champion
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:54 PM
Posts: 471,
Visits: 628
|
|
| i've just "bumped" into the last pages on here as I wandered onto Rule7. How the Hell did this conversation get on a "LARP Forum????" The discussion of Marxist Views, Hitler, Democracy, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, Philiosophy and the like. Guys, get in a room and talk about it. Agree to disagree. Email each other and discuss your polotics. Online chat room / instant messaging. Brilliant place for it. LARP Forum? Place to talk about how to make leather armour, where the next fest is, how good the last one was, organising a group of players....... Yup, I can see all that here........
- PD: Captain Dubious (so i'm told) and all round Arms Dealer of Mill-en
- EOS: William Duyven, Fellowship of the Traveller
- RL: Ian, maker of fine LARP weapons
- www.makai-larp.co.uk
- Now providing replica firearms - delivered to every Maelstrom Event!
- Ok, i'll add "Free Delivery to Maelstrom and EOS"
|
|
|
|
|
Champion
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 9:56 AM
Posts: 273,
Visits: 842
|
|
| This is rather the forum's "freefire zone" old chap. But point taken.
-- -- -- Eos: Manius Shard, Shard tank commander FnH: Officious Guard no.1
|
|
|
|
|
Overlord
Group: Administrators
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 5:38 PM
Posts: 1,415,
Visits: 3,507
|
|
| Mugger's is for open conversations on any subject with less of a hold's barred approach. Despite being away on a Business trip until yesterday, in the middle of moving house, and writing event literature, I am monitoring the thread very carefully. Should it cross the line, I will intervene as I usually do. Thus far things have been heated but not too inflammatory. The biggest concern for me is the extended tangent which serves only to alienate users from the original topic.
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:56 PM
Posts: 945,
Visits: 1,362
|
|
| With LRP actually being a game, there are very few issues which can become "heated" without being ridiculous. At least this discussion has life relevance, some of the crap we've debated before (usually through boredom or sheer bloody mindedness) had no point at all.
|
|
|
| | |