US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1691

On March 04 2015 02:44 oneofthem wrote:

doesn't take a lot to inspire nowadays. from what i've seen maybe 50% of it there is absolutely nothing new with his stuff and it's the same bullshit


here's fp's take on the speech.

On March 04 2015 03:01 GreenHorizons wrote:


I don't really see how "This deal is bad, we could have a better one". is anything but empty rhetoric?

On March 04 2015 02:14 MoltkeWarding wrote:

Since you don’t really provide the concrete arguments for why you believe in the “Master Plan,” I will have to intervene as best as I can from my personal knowledge on the subject.

The original argument derives its authority from Considerations on the Strategic Deployment Plan of the Soviet Armed Forces, drafted in May 1941 which envisages a pre-emptive attack against a German attack in the East. This was the final iteration of a series of deployment plans along the same lines. The author of the May 1940 draft was Vassilevsky, chief of staff to Zhukov, and according to whom, the plan was presented to Stalin. Those who believe that Stalin not only initiated the plans, but also intended to carry them out make several assumptions: that these plans owe their existence to not only direction by Stalin, but that they, taken in isolation, reflected his foreign policy. And on that still hinges the central question. There is not one iota of evidence from Stalin’s interviews, speeches or public acts in May-June 1941 that he had any intention to attack the Germans, and plenty of indications to the contrary. Until such evidence can be furnished, and a direct link drawn between the Zhukov plans and the decision to carry them out as a matter of policy, there is simply no proof of the argument you are asserting. Incidentally, the entire hypothesis is more popular among military historians than among diplomatic and political historians, because it requires a direct inference that military planning is reflective of political decision-making to really accept the argument.



Your objections are astonishing in view that I have not represented any general view of the 19th century. The 19th century was the century of Revolutions, not wars. It was the century of the Book, the century of Progress, the century of Science, the century of Optimism, the century of Industry, the century of Money, the century of Liberty, the century of the Nation, the century of History, the century of Reform. Looking at the 19th century through the lens of ideological abstraction is unhealthy. I focus on the history of diplomatic paradigms, because that is the subject of my writing, not some abstract idea of the 19th century.

The definition of Fascism as all authoritarian non-Communist regimes of the 20th century and as promogulated in 20s Soviet jargon, and modern Frankfurt schoolers is historically inaccurate and potentially misleading. Fascism was an Italian phenomenon, not a universal phenomenon. National Socialism, Falangism, not to mention military Juntas of South America do not belong under the aegis of the title. The entire term, implying some genetic link between National Socialism and Fascism because Hitler and Mussolini became allies after 1936 is retrospective rationalisation. It must ignore, for instance, the hostility between “Nazis” and “Fascists” in Austria in the 30s, and “Nazis” and other authoritarian right-wing governments of the 30s. The inflated use of the word “Fascism” is now being indiscriminately assigned to Metexas’ Greece, Pilsudski’s Poland, the Polish triumvirate which succeeded Pilsudski, Salazar’s Portugal, Horthy’s Hungary, the interwar regimes in the Baltics.

Before I even address this subject, I want to clarify what I specifically mean by Fascism.

Historically, Fascist ideas grew out of the futurist movement of the early 20th century, as incarnated by Filippo Marinetti. Futurism was a specifically Italian variant of cultural vitalism, in which the values of energy, speed, novelty, originality, and violence were elevated. The Italian variant of cultural vitalism was closely aligned with Italian concept of life itself, as a “flexible, quick, anti-intellectual, fiery, sensuous” process which expended itself in energetic self-expression, and which suffered constant decay and renewal. Although it was merely commonsensical that life is about decay and renewal, what was important to the futurists was man’s responsibility for acceleration. It believed in life as a work of art: aggressive, provocative and violent and short.

The merger of Futurism as an artistic movement, and Fascism as a political movement also came into fruition in the conditions of post-risorgimento Italy. The national cause, championed mid-century by liberals like Verdi, became the cause of the educated elite by the end of the 19th century. Because Italy was more socially primitive than Western Europe, there was a large gulf between the educated idealists and the mass of illiterate peasants who were the substance of the nation. In the end, most educated Italians supported Italian entry into the First World War (including the former Anarcho-Syndicalist Mussolini, who broke with the Socialists on the war) not only for territorial aggrandisement, but as a social experiment to complete the Risorgimento, and complete the Italian nation. In that sense, we can trace the emergence of Fascism in the following factors: 1) The backwardness of Italian society 2) The military ineffectiveness of Italian armies during the wars of liberation 3) The political corruption of the Liberal era 4) The weakness of the Italian bourgeoisie 5) The inherent contradiction between idealism and parliamentary politics 6) The sense of the Risorgimento, in contrast to Bismarck’s “satiated state” as an ongoing historical process.

Italy went to war against Austria in 1915 because that was what the opinionated classes in Italy wanted. Whether the liberal parliamentary state in Italy would have survived if Italy had remained neutral is an academic question. However, under the guise of the war, the creed of neo-vitalism and futurism, already having a stranglehold on the nation, became the national ideology. Poets like Gabriele d’Annunzio became the incarnation of the spirit of the Italian nation (a heroic Byronic archetype.)

This provides a decent summary I think, on my thoughts of the genesis of Fascism. Saying that Fascism can be traced to the 19th century is like saying that a dog can be traced to its tail, and therefore the tail is the essence of dogs. The 19th century was the century of the National ideal. The question is: which kind of national ideal? How did it manifest itself? Bismarck, the German liberals, Garibaldi, Gambetta, Boulanger, Verdi, Wagner, Herder, Hegel, Fichte, Mann, D’Annunzio were all “nationalists” in one form or another. Yet the politics and culture which emerged from them were vastly different.

On March 04 2015 05:22 oneofthem wrote:

netanyahu's history of base fear mongering doesn't worry you? the guy basically misrepresented the administration's actual position on iran, calling the current process a 'bad deal' without actually knowing what is being dealt. if he wants to actually negotiate with iran in obama's stead he should try getting elected to the office of president of the u.s.