EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 636
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
| ||
|
FuzzyJAM
Scotland9300 Posts
There are a small number of "NazBols" (Nazi-Bolsheviks) today who would claim the Nazis were socialists. But they are despised by every other self-described socialist grouping, which are decidedly anti-fascist. It's one of the few things the hugely fractured left (I mean anarchists/socialists/communists, not the "left" of mainstream politics and social democrats) is universal on. So I don't think they can be usefully grouped with "real" socialists. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On January 03 2017 20:30 maybenexttime wrote: I assumed that you're left-wing because in my experience people objecting to the notion that Nazism had some socialist elements are predominantly left-wing people, who usually identify as socialists. "National Socialism" and "socialism" are both loaded terms. It's hard to find non-partisan points of view. Usually it's either the proponents of socialism denouncing National Socialism as not having anything to do with socialism, by stressing the non- or anti-socialist aspects of the ideology and ignoring the actual socialist elements, or the opponents of socialism stressing the socialist aspects of the ideology in order to claim that it's effectively a form of socialism. Both sides to use it as a guilt by association tactic. The quote you provided is an example of that, to a degree. It mentions that Nazis repressed labor unions. But the author ignores the fact that that was more due to the totalitarian nature of the German state rather than the opposition to the idea of labor unions itself - Nazi Germany oppressed pretty much all independent organizations (and at the very least, those it saw as competing with the state-established institutions). As a matter of fact, NSDAP founded a National Socialist trade union (German Labor Front) and made membership mandatory for all workers. The organization strived to better the work conditions of German workers in many ways: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Labour_Front I don't know whether "social welfare provision did not advance markedly beyond that which dated back to Bismarckian Germany" is actually true. I have my doubts. But that is kind of irrelevant, as Bismarck was the founding father of State Socialism, whose goal was to defuse the ticking bomb of a revolution. Bismarck implemented some of the socialist policies in order to appease the workers. According to the article below, NSDAP put a lot of effort into improving the standard of living of ordinary Germans. Many of these policies go even beyond what modern Western welfare states do, don't you agree? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_People's_Welfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_(Germany) KdF did sponsor working-class recreational activities beyond the ordinary stipulations of the welfare state. Organisation of vacations, visitations to opera, theatre, art galleries and music halls, as well as the expansion of a civilian recreation market were some of the responsibilities taken under its wing. The "socialist" element in Hitler's thinking was very real, despite its very serious objections to the Marxist intellectual tradition. The nationalist element within Nazi ideology was preeminent, but already in 1920 the party declared that "No state in the world can maintain its internal health, without internal social justice." Again in 1922: the "bourgeois parties" must learn, that "social thinking must be fundamental in the form of the state." The leadership of the Nazi party, and Hitler above all, would hammer home again and again, up into the war itself, about the primacy of the social question in the National Socialist ideology. The social problem being central to the Nazi ideology, there were several things which socialism did not mean to the Nazis. It manifestly did not mean general equality between different individuals; the proposition that all men are equal was a propositional abstraction, an absurdity in the face of reality. Nor did it mean that the different national cultures and peoples had a fundamental ecological equality. As Rainer Zitelmann's book on Hitler's political ideas proposes, there were two main axis of social progress under the Nazi agenda. The first was "equality of opportunity," by which an "equality of ends" was consciously excoriated. Equality of opportunity meant the elevation of the most able, the most "talented" members of a Volksgemeinschaft to a position where they are able to use their talents in the service of the whole people. This elevation of natural talent, as the Nazis believed, ought to sweep aside the biases of social class, so that in time, the old elites would be replaced by a newer generation of self-made men. Socialism in Nazi ideology did not lead to an equality of ends between individuals; merely to the destruction of the social barriers which would lead to a new and perpetually shifting inequality of certain men rising, others falling in accord with their talents and abilities. The second element was the programme to elevate the social prestige of the working-class, as well as to integrate them as full-fledged members of the Volksgemeinschaft, through education, and above all, making available to them the fruits of higher culture. The Kraft durch Freude programmes expanding recreational activity of this sort for the working classes were initiated with these goals in mind. These had the goals of eliciting from the working classes an active participation in the cultural works of the nation, and thereby sweeping aside the barriers to individual inspiration as well as the barriers of social prejudice which prevented the national community from reaching its full potential. Something must be said about the particular Nazi view of class. That it was opposed to the old conservative, aristocratic world-view goes without saying. However, National Socialism was principally and fundamentally an anti-bourgeois movement. In a 1928 speech, Hitler criticised the parochial politics of the Weimar nationalist politics, remarking that the term "national" and "nationalist" had become associated with class or economic interests was not an invention of the Marxists, but was the responsibility of the Weimar nationalist parties themselves, in so far as the "nation" in their minds, became confounded with egoistical economic interests. The bourgeois parties in their turn, were devoid of principles, and were engaged in a perpetual struggle for power for power's sake. Their efforts to combat Marxism were futile, because "one can only defeat one Weltanschauung when one offers to the masses another Weltanschauung." Thereby Hitler was critical not only of the bourgeois Weimar parties, but also of Bismarck's socialist law of 1878. In so far as Hitler was critical of the bourgeoisie, he was critical for much the same reason that bohemian gadflies have been critical of the bourgeois civilisational concept ever since: their lack of principles, lack of vision, lack of long-term thinking, lack of decisiveness, lack of intellectual and spiritual vitality. The leadership of the future German nation therefore, could not come from the present elites, but must come from the working classes. After seizing power, Hitler said in a speech to the DAF: the bourgeois political order was one representing the characteristics of a class-state. The democratic state led to a state in which "the propertied classes identified with itself, the entrepreneurs with itself." The democratic state is therefore not an objective representation of the popular interest, but rather one which institutionalised the struggle between particular interests. Again, in 1930: "If the Bolsheviks had not in mind the annihilation of the best elements of the race, but rather only the mess of bourgeois politics, one would be severely tempted to bless their enterprise." And in 1936: "We will not have defended Germany from Bolshevism, if we merely attempt to preserve the bourgeois world." At the end of the war: "The bourgeois European world is finished; and there remain only the alternatives to decide between a sensible social order on a national basis on one hand, and Bolshevism on the other." In their basic hostility to the world-view of the 19th century, Hitler was fully in accord with the socialist left. Where then, did the Nazis fundamentally disagree with the Communists and Social Democrats? Of the Social Democrats, we have instances of Hitler praising the old SPD immediately after the war, but the SPD became, in his view, during the Weimar Republic, a party which abandoned its origins as a vessel of social revolution, but became another bourgeois, reformist party, controlled by the Jews. Whereas the members, rank and file of the SPD he praised, and proceeded to win over to the NSDAP in election after election, he excoriated the leadership. Regarding the Communists, Hitler admired their fanaticism, and, unlike the bourgeois parties, they were led by men of principle. After his seizure of power Hitler reached out to the members of the Communist Party: "when the Communist comes to reason and wishes to return to the Volk, he is whole-heartedly welcome with us." At the Nuremberg Rallies in 1935, Hitler spoke with DAF labour battalions and asked them: How old? What do you do? What were your prior political affiliations? When one man said that he was a Communist, Hitler clapsed his hands around the man's head and told him: "And therefrom you all came! Thus must all such come." Hitler extended to his communist opponents a respect that he never gave the "bourgeois" politicians. On the other hand, the idealistic" wing of Marxism was not only wrong in their world-view, but in their fundamental estimation of human nature. "In the place of Struggle they promote Pacifism, in the place of the Race, the Internationale, and in place of the Human Person, they promote democracy," he said in the twenties. The left-wing parties in Germany, as he saw it, were ultimately, whatever their aspirations for social change, fettered in their ideology to democracy, or as Hitler pejoratively called it, the "Majority" principle, which rejected the "Personality" principle; that old German belief in the agency of individual energy and genius as the catalyst for all creative endeavours at the foundation of healthy cultures. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1512 Posts
| ||
|
Euphorbus
92 Posts
If not, why are you guys even having this debate? I guess it's not strange that this person with an odd infatuation with German/Prussian nationalism shows up. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On January 03 2017 23:38 LightSpectra wrote: I was wondering if anybody could recommend any good literature about: (1) the ideologies of European social democracy/Christian democracy, and (2) the histories of the welfare states in western and northern Europe? There seems to be a dearth of good literature about it that I can find in the USA. I was considering picking up a biography of Clement Attlee or Konrad Adenauer but I'm much less interested in the history of their lives rather than an analysis of their economic policies. It does bring to my attention that there is no real history of so-called Freiburg school economists in the English language, and as far as I know, the only real attempt at an English biography of Ludwig Erhard is Alfred Mierzejewski's from 10 years ago. There are a plethora of books on this subject in German, including Ludwig Erhard's mémoires which have never been translated AFAIK, but you can find them online in open sources. It is a fairly thorough account of the Erhard era policies and their rationale. In the case of the Attlee cabinet, David Kynasten's book, Austerity Britain is one I have not yet read, and as such I cannot recommend it personally, but it has received very positive reviews and should be on a conoisseur's list of things to read. Kynasten's book is all the more appealing because it is a proper panoramic narrative piece. If you happen to read it, you can send me a PM and we can compare notes and critiques. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1512 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On January 04 2017 00:10 Euphorbus wrote: So if the Nazi's ideology included 'equality of opportunity', or their skewed unequal interpretation of it, does that mean that 'equality of opportunity' is not good? If not, why are you guys even having this debate? I guess it's not strange that this person with an odd infatuation with German/Prussian nationalism shows up. The reason people debate political metaphysics relates to a need for hypostasic integrity, to represent themselves as intellectually, and therefore ethically coherent beings. People are searching for a secular god, and the least fortunate of them turn to politics. | ||
mustaju
Estonia4504 Posts
On January 04 2017 00:46 MoltkeWarding wrote: The reason people debate political metaphysics relates to a need for hypostasic integrity, to represent themselves as intellectually, and therefore ethically coherent beings. People are searching for a secular god, and the least fortunate of them turn to politics. Well put! I also found your description of the integration of left-wing ideologies into the National-Socialist system very illuminating, since especially now it is important to know the actual circumstances it took place in. | ||
|
Euphorbus
92 Posts
On January 04 2017 00:46 MoltkeWarding wrote: The reason people debate political metaphysics relates to a need for hypostasic integrity, to represent themselves as intellectually, and therefore ethically coherent beings. People are searching for a secular god, and the least fortunate of them turn to politics. I didn't ask why people debate politics. It seems my post went completely over your head. Let me ask you a question you can understand: What do you think was good about the nazi's? | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On January 04 2017 01:19 Euphorbus wrote: I didn't ask why people debate politics. It seems my post went completely over your head. Let me ask you a question you can understand: What do you think was good about the nazi's? I said political metaphysics, not political debate. The traits, both personal and ethical required of a political analyst are quite different from those required of a politician or political activist. To the extent it is important for some people to distinguish "National Socialism" from "pure" Socialism, this is a question which is meant to resolve a point of internal clarity, it is not about practical ethics or politics. In sum, these are questions with no social or political stakes involved in their resolution, but are nonetheless important to people personally. Because "equality of opportunity" is neither more nor less substantial as a concept than "socialism" or "National Socialism." Saying that the former is inherently good regardless of whether it was adhered to by one party, or the other, or neither, or both, merely begs the same kinds of questions. If you do not think that a logician, practicing ideology in the shelter of catechismic purity can have any doubts on the question, you have never really asked yourself whether your belief in an idea preceded its subordinate tenants, or whether your support for a collection of tenants later coalesced into a coherent ideology. Why is it, that a majority of people in the United States who support gun control also just happen to support homosexual marriage, despite the lack of any obvious connection between the two issues? Why is it that people c. 2008 who opposed the invasion of Iraq suddenly had a fascination for the Gold Standard? The words we use to structure our beliefs and values matters; and their internal coherency and relationship to other ideas matters, especially to young people who lack the practical experience of forming their judgements by experience and instinct. | ||
|
Euphorbus
92 Posts
You have been blabbering on this site about German nationalism for, what is it, 10 years now, using words almost no one knows or that are only vaguely inside the sphere of the English language, and adding postmodern gibbish to it. Have you not gotten tired of it by now? People who opposed the Iraq invasion have a fascination with the gold standard? Really? Citation? That's basically the only coherent thing you said in that post. I don't know how it connects to anything else, and they seem to be more about US politics than anything else. But that is basically the only thing you said that does better than not even being wrong. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On January 04 2017 01:49 Euphorbus wrote: Political metaphysics doesn't exist. You have been blabbering on this site about German nationalism for, what is it, 10 years now, using words almost no one knows or that are only vaguely inside the sphere of the English language, and adding postmodern gibbish to it. Have you not gotten tired of it by now? People who opposed the Iraq invasion have a fascination with the gold standard? Really? Citation? That's basically the only coherent thing you said in that post. I don't know how it connects to anything else, and they seem to be more about US politics than anything else. But that is basically the only thing you said that does better than not even being wrong. Political metaphysics ought not exist, but they do, and they were invented by people who ask such impertinent things as So did the communists ruling USSR. Were they also not true communists? Until such people disappear from the face of the earth, we ought to use such limited means of comprehension as we have to pay some respect to them. As for my incessant blabbering about German nationalism, I suppose I would equally like to discuss the influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaic and Christian demonology, but no one ever raises these questions. The reason I do so is because both socialism and National Socialism, two "metaphysical concepts" stuck in the conversational repertoire of this forum, reappear again and again; as fixed beacons against which successive generations of chatterers measure their own personal convictions. I use what experience I have with these subjects to provide some historical clarity on the subject. Since I take care to never exactly repeat myself or my arguments, I never really get bored of my own output, to answer your question. But enough about me; let's talk about you. How long have you been a devoted follower of mine, and how has your devotion endured all these years of thematic monotony with which I have encumbered your patience? | ||
|
mustaju
Estonia4504 Posts
On January 04 2017 01:49 Euphorbus wrote: Political metaphysics doesn't exist. You have been blabbering on this site about German nationalism for, what is it, 10 years now, using words almost no one knows or that are only vaguely inside the sphere of the English language, and adding postmodern gibbish to it. Have you not gotten tired of it by now? People who opposed the Iraq invasion have a fascination with the gold standard? Really? Citation? That's basically the only coherent thing you said in that post. I don't know how it connects to anything else, and they seem to be more about US politics than anything else. But that is basically the only thing you said that does better than not even being wrong. I take that he means "underlying nature of political ideologies", (gross over-simplification by me, I know) by the term political metaphysics. By that, I understood that his goal is to accurately and fairly describe and compare traits of ideologies. He used some examples from history that could correct a potential misconception. In all of that, I thought he was extremely coherent, even if he did use difficult terminology and did not cite some of his sources. None of that provoked the response I see from you. I did not see him propagate national socialism, and looking at his previous posts, I couldn't find anything overly objectionable. However, because you attacked his form of expressing himself, I do think you are being extremely unfair. From personal experience, you start sounding like the people you read. Complicated terminology exists in order to prevent inaccuracy, and it's difficult to turn off. If you don't understand him, there's nicer ways to tell him that. I had to google one word and now feel better for knowing it. | ||
|
Euphorbus
92 Posts
If an idea cannot be expressed in plain language, there probably is no point to that idea in the first place. He uses the words to obfuscate debate and play tricks, like a proper postmodernist would. It doesn't help that he loves to talk about the Nazi's and other German Nationalists. And he wants me to believe he'd rather not talk about his pet peeve, but others just keep forcing him to do so? Also, let me enlighten that guy, referring to him by his tag is just too vulgar, on his 'true communism' comment, and in plain language. Political groups will use whatever label they think serves them best. The label itself is meaningless. True communists, true capitalists, true Christians, you really want to give any adherence to such concepts? If a person uses a label to self-identify, then they do. If you want to know how they really act, look at their actions. Did the USSR implement Marxist ideas? I guess they did to the same degree as we in the west implemented the ideas of Adam Smith. Take certain political ideas, take a certain existing power structure and dynamic, mix them up, and the outcomes have often little to do with those political ideas themselves. A discussion about what is true and pure, if he really dabbles in academics like he suggest, he must know that is seen as a crude debate in the field. Once he publishes a paper on 'true and pure Prussianism', give me a heads up. I will read that. And I am sure the peer reviewers will make him remove all the 'fancy' words. Capitalism or communism? Both interesting ideas. Let's try them out sometime, once we figure out how that would actually be possible. As for debating social democracy in Europe, you'd be better of debating the nature of globalism and the effect of maximizing economic growth, ignoring all other economic parameters. There is the real issue to debate. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5563 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
That said he was being unusually clear relatively speaking, at least on the subject of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, before devolving into "hypostasic integrity". Such is he. In any case, left or right; these words have very little meaning in a political system which isn't a past the post system, where two distinct loyalty based political parties exist to pool together somewhat disparate interests into two parties. In which case in these current times of political unpheaval amongth most fpts systems, left and right as a usual catch all political description no longer exist. | ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
The core comments are pretty direct and understandable. A few flourishes around the edges maybe, but that just makes it interesting to read. Suggesting he's a postmodern obscurantist is not warranted at all. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7890 Posts
On January 04 2017 08:12 Deleuze wrote: I fail to see what the issue is that some of you have with how moltewarding articulates himself? The core comments are pretty direct and understandable. A few flourishes around the edges maybe, but that just makes it interesting to read. Suggesting he's a postmodern obscurantist is not warranted at all. Deleuze flying to support post modern verbiage, this is a savoury one (double the irony by the fact I also have a Deleuze quote in my signature - my head is gonna explode) | ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
On January 04 2017 08:25 Biff The Understudy wrote: Deleuze flying to support post modern verbiage, this is a savoury one (double the irony by the fact I also have a Deleuze quote in my signature - my head is gonna explode) I cringed at the irony, but posted nonetheless! All I can say in my defense is that I have an intimate knowledge of the obscure postmodern - and that ain't it! | ||
| ||
