EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 637
| 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. | ||
|
Euphorbus
92 Posts
| ||
|
pmh
1352 Posts
Ya this is true. But this is an internet gaming forum lol,just exchange ideas and opinions on the fly. Not a paper meant to get me a degree. I have given up using complicated terminology on forums like this ages ago. It is even counter productive and often ends up in pages full of discussions about what a certain word means. Though moltke wardings first post was very informative for those who are not familiar with the history the following posts are very weird again and they don't seem to add anything. Things like this "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." Like if you truly believe this then I don't know what to say anymore. And I have to assume this is exactly what he believes,since he makes a lot of effort to express himself correctly. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10716 Posts
Don't get me wrong, at the right place these posts would be awesome and, while i have no problem understanding them, they are for sure not the correct lingu to use here. It sounds like a douchy english student trying to show superiority... problem is ~50 percent of the people here are not native english speakers. So a rather sizeable portion of the possible readers will have problems understanding, let alone responding (i can't) to him in the same way. | ||
|
fezvez
France3021 Posts
both socialism and National Socialism, two "metaphysical concepts" [...] Linking the two in a sentence not only makes little sense, it's a complete disgrace to socialism, and it's obviously bait (which I am fully swallowing but I had to react). I entirely agree with Veir about how this is not about discussing a topic, but instead about loving to hear oneself. The original discussion is buried beneath what I can only describe as a pile of bullshit (I would love to put fancy words, but not being a native speaker doesn't help) | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On January 05 2017 06:09 fezvez wrote: a pile of bullshit (I would love to put fancy words a pile of "propositional abstraction" Note that in English those two words have two very specific meanings; combined together in the context of his post it is meaningless. I wish I was making this up. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
On January 05 2017 06:09 fezvez wrote: If only Whitedog was here, he would go without end about how moltke is conceited for stating random nonsense such as : Linking the two in a sentence not only makes little sense, it's a complete disgrace to socialism, and it's obviously bait (which I am fully swallowing but I had to react). I entirely agree with Veir about how this is not about discussing a topic, but instead about loving to hear oneself. The original discussion is buried beneath what I can only describe as a pile of bullshit (I would love to put fancy words, but not being a native speaker doesn't help) i read that as: socialism and National Socialism are political ideas. i'm still not fond of his style though. | ||
|
FuzzyJAM
Scotland9300 Posts
The fact that his atypical words are being blatantly abused belies the claim that the aim in their use is accuracy. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5563 Posts
On January 05 2017 06:09 fezvez wrote: If only Whitedog was here, he would go without end about how moltke is conceited for stating random nonsense such as : Linking the two in a sentence not only makes little sense, it's a complete disgrace to socialism, and it's obviously bait (which I am fully swallowing but I had to react). I entirely agree with Veir about how this is not about discussing a topic, but instead about loving to hear oneself. The original discussion is buried beneath what I can only describe as a pile of bullshit (I would love to put fancy words, but not being a native speaker doesn't help) Why does it make little sense? Socialism and National Socialism have plenty in common, as shown earlier. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 05 2017 19:17 maybenexttime wrote: Why does it make little sense? Socialism and National Socialism have plenty in common, as shown earlier. It's rather easy to say "plenty" when you do not give a comparative measure. From my point of view the historic German form of National Socialism is an extremist form of conservatism, built upon the notion to go back to united "German culture" state ("3rd Reich"), under the leadership of a wise dictator and his party (to replace the Emperor and the nobility) and employ 19th century colonialism. Under the pressure of socialist movements and the economical crisis, the realization that the Nazis themselves were not noble men and the technological progress, they obviously had to adopt certain themes. They were children of their time afterall as well, even though they were reactionary. That does not make them "more Socialist" than the social democrats or conservatives of that time. Hitler did not invent the highways, or create state funds to employ people. Those were conservative - not even socialist programs of 1932 - that he just adopted. That's just how the world works, if you want to stay in power you have to make concessions or opress. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5563 Posts
On January 05 2017 20:09 Big J wrote: It's rather easy to say "plenty" when you do not give a comparative measure. From my point of view the historic German form of National Socialism is an extremist form of conservatism, built upon the notion to go back to united "German culture" state ("3rd Reich"), under the leadership of a wise dictator and his party (to replace the Emperor and the nobility) and employ 19th century colonialism. Under the pressure of socialist movements and the economical crisis, the realization that the Nazis themselves were not noble men and the technological progress, they obviously had to adopt certain themes. They were children of their time afterall as well, even though they were reactionary. That does not make them "more Socialist" than the social democrats or conservatives of that time. Hitler did not invent the highways, or create state funds to employ people. Those were conservative - not even socialist programs of 1932 - that he just adopted. That's just how the world works, if you want to stay in power you have to make concessions or opress. I fail to see how National Socialism is "an extremist form of conservatism" at all. Wikipedia Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. Conservatives seek to preserve institutions like the Church, monarchy and the social hierarchy, as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism https://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatism As you yourself said, National Socialism in Germany sought to replace the traditional institutions. It proposed a radical change of the existing society, both in terms of racial purity and removing groups they considered as "degenerate" (through compulsory sterilization or involuntary euthanasia), as well as effectively removing the barriers posed by social classes by promoting meritocracy and equality of opportunities (for recognized citizens). Nazis also replaced most of the old symbols with new ones. Lastly, while their relations with Christianity were mixed, in the long term they intended to replace it with neopaganism. That is the opposite of conservatism. At the same time, Nazis strongly supported the traditional view on gender roles, banned abortion and discouraged contraception, opposed homosexuality (although it was actually prevalent in some of their elite organizations), as well as promoted patriotism and self-sacrifice for the community, and preached the superiority of (a certain subset of) white people - which can all be considered as conservative values/views. Anyway, my point is that National Socialism adopted plenty of socialist policies, both in terms of appeasing the working class and improving the standard of living of ordinary citizens, to render claims that socialism and National Socialism had nothing in common or were even antithetical as evidently invalid. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 05 2017 21:33 maybenexttime wrote: I fail to see how National Socialism is "an extremist form of conservatism" at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism https://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatism As you yourself said, National Socialism in Germany sought to replace the traditional institutions. It proposed a radical change of the existing society, both in terms of racial purity and removing groups they considered as "degenerate" (through compulsory sterilization or involuntary euthanasia), as well as effectively removing the barriers posed by social classes by promoting meritocracy and equality of opportunities (for recognized citizens). Nazis also replaced most of the old symbols with new ones. Lastly, while their relations with Christianity were mixed, in the long term they intended to replace it with neopaganism. That is the opposite of conservatism. At the same time, Nazis strongly supported the traditional view on gender roles, banned abortion and discouraged contraception, opposed homosexuality (although it was actually prevalent in some of their elite organizations), as well as promoted patriotism and self-sacrifice for the community, and preached the superiority of (a certain subset of) white people - which can all be considered as conservative values/views. Anyway, my point is that National Socialism adopted plenty of socialist policies, both in terms of appeasing the working class and improving the standard of living of ordinary citizens, to render claims that socialism and National Socialism had nothing in common or were even antithetical as evidently invalid. The difference in your view and my view here is that you make reactionarism a political direction of its own, while I call it an extremist form of conservatism, like the classical left-right spectrum imposes (Nazis, nationalists, conservatives are all at the right side) or like even the quote Wikipedia article imposes. (if you click on the word "reactionaries" you are linked to "Ractionary" which is part on a series about conservatism) In my view reactionarism is the notion that the lack of conservatism has allowed for too much change and now you have to walk a bit backwards until you reach the best order of society again. Which is exactly what the Nazis did. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9198 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
On January 05 2017 22:58 Sent. wrote: Techincally it was because nazis revoked the citizenship of people who did not belong to that socio-ethnic group. Well sure, the point still remains that a socialism that divvies out benefits based on otherization and exclusion is likely not a socialism at all, though defending words in place of ideas is only so useful  | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18001 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
Surely by now people should learn the difference between what people claim and what they effectively do. The North Korean regime is technically called “Democratic People's Republic of Korea,” are we now going to say it's a democratic regime because it calls itself so? Please... | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
On January 05 2017 23:08 Acrofales wrote: Can we just agree that it isn't socialism in the inclusive manner we now understand socialism, but perhaps some of the nazis were inspired by socialist ideas? At least enough to include it in their party name. This discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Meh, teasing out difference where similarity is claimed is a fair cause, and given the direction of our collective politics, I don't think this kind of discussion is going anywhere any time soon  | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9198 Posts
On January 05 2017 23:18 TheDwf wrote: Funny how there's always some right-winger to come and say, “oh look, there's socialism in national socialism!” Surely by now people should learn the difference between what people claim and what they effectively do. The North Korean regime is technically called “Democratic People's Republic of Korea,” are we now going to say it's a democratic regime because it calls itself so? Please... This is how some right wing people feel when someone from the left calls their policies fascist. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
On January 05 2017 23:21 Sent. wrote: This is how right wing people feel when someone from the left calls their policies fascist. One can imagine a practically infinite number of over-generalized, label-centric barbs that don't stand up to scrutiny, and we needn't trust your ability to understand the emotions of all "right wing people" in order to do so. | ||
| ||
