User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 31

Thread: Ideology

  1. #21
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    You know Lark I was just about to mention Landauer.
    What did Landauer mean by volk? Certainly not what the National Socialists meant, when they stole the term! Thus, folk consciousness... an inner individual awareness of social ties that demand cooperative activity. This folk consciousness is the generic memory and historical essence of a people's past ancestors embedded deeply in the common language as well as the psychic makeup of every individual formed in the cultural interaction of the group within its milieu.36

    Each volk is part of humanity and is a natural community of peace. This differentiates it from the State and from Nationalism37 or States are natural enemies, nations are not.38 A Volk is a culture and society growing from a region and is synonymous with nation. But, as we have seen, this is nation in the sense that Native Americans use the term and not of race or nation state. Furthermore, Every nation is anarchistic, that is, without force, the conception of nation and force are completely irreconcilable.39 This latter statement would seem highly idealistic given the feuding endemic among tribal groups, but perhaps can be seen as an ideal type. Such an ideal concept is not utopian, for peaceful nations do exist. One good example of volk and nation in the Landauer sense, and one could list others, would be the Acadian communities of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. They have a common history, language and culture, have a large measure of self-government, but have no desire to create a State nor feel any hostility or chauvinism toward their non-Acadian neighbors.

    In the same way that the State and nationalism create a false community, he thought international organizations and congresses were nothing more than an ersatz of the world community.40 (He certainly would not like NATO, the WTO or the UN.)

    http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist...community.html
    This was influential on the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, whose social theories were also influenced by strains of the Volkisch movement. Buber's writings on the Volk or Blood community were used(or misused) by the Nazis for their purposes, but of course like Landauer, Buber meant something different. It also parallels how the Nazis tried to use Ferdinand Tönnies's theory of Gemeinschaft, despite the fact he was anti-Nazi and a Social Democrat.

  2. #22
    Superwoman Red Herring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    For the future, can you please not write within quotes? It's more difficult to distinguish your words from mine.
    Can do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    As far as classifying Nazism as categorically "fascist", that has been a matter of debate among scholars. John Lukacs offers a good take on this:
    http://www.nationalism.org/library/s...-TMPR-2002.pdf
    Stanley Payne and Robert Paxton
    Thanks for the link. I read it and I did some quick research on Lukacs. It is an interesting take, but I disagree with about 3/4 of his conclusions. It might be a contributing factor though that I read about him being "ideosyncratic", "a self proclaimed reactionary" and a "revisionist" just minutes before reading the essay, so I'll give him another chance on some other occation. Maybe you could recommend some other essay. He seems a bit tendentious (and from the wrong direction, subjectively speaking), but I prefer interesting peole I disagree with to unstimulating people I might agree with. I will also look into some of the other two.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    You mean fatherland?
    Yes, hate it. I get rashes from patriotic/nationalist jargon and prefer to go with Brecht: "He who, in our times, says population instead of Volk/people and real estate instead of Boden/soil is already boycotting a lot of lies. He robs the words of their fould mystique." Your Lukasc would probably agree!


    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Well if we want a definition of what National Socialism is and its theoretical presuppositions, where else are we to turn?
    You know the old expression "Do as I say, not as I do?". I do see where you are getting at, but not only was there a lot of developement between the early twenties and the mid forties (as the article also mentions) there were severeal streams within the movement. People followed willingly, but not all of themfor the same reason. So if you want to put one unifying label on it, you would have to look at what the practical implementation looked at as well, not just quote a few populist lines from some blood and soil rhetoric. More than enough were in it not for the blood and soil (an "added benefit" if you will) but out of opportunism as well, fascism is about the distribution of power, a little nationalism/populism/whatever you want to call it does help to sell it. Especially if you look at the Latin American dictatorships that were also mentioned.

    Perhaps some of this discussion might have been cut short if we had a short glossary at the beginning of the thread, because the way you and Lukacs use these terms differs from the generally accepted use. That's okay, but you might want to say so right away to avoid misunderstandings and waste of time.


    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Even so there are still significant differences between the Italians and Germans even culturally speaking. Italian nationalism(even fascism) bears more resemblences to its counterpart in Spain and Portugal, and even France to some extent. German nationalism was originally based on language, even dating to von Herder. Race doesn't become much of a factor untill the latter half of the 19th century. It's more comparable to certain strains of East European nationalisms in some ways.
    Mostly correct. That's what I was referring to when I talked about identifying through language. If the Italians indeed identify/identified through the state rather than through language or culture, it would be interesting to see why that developement took a different route. Just curious. As to the theory of German exeptionalism, I once read a very interestimg book on the history of witch hunts by a German emigré to the Netherlands who, while writing purely about the middle ages, makes it that clear that it is no coincidence that the centre of the witch hunts was not in the Spain of the Inquisition, etc. but in the German speaking part of Europe and nearby neighbors like the Netherlands stayed mysteriously immune to it. He basicallyy made the case that then culture offered more fertile ground for lynch mob mentality in Germany centuries before the Shoa. If that is indeed so, that would be extremely interesting.


    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Ahh I see. Burnham I know noted the Nazi regime as a larger trend towards the Managerial state, which existed in Russia and even America under the New Deal.

    I'll have to add more later.
    That idea/comparison is exactly what I sensed between the line of Lukacs and the reason why I disliked it. I can see what political corner those comparisons usually come from.

    Please do post more. Even if I might disagree, it is definitely interesting to read and think through.
    The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life. - Bertrand Russell
    A herring's blog
    Johari / Nohari

  3. #23
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Damn it, I lost the long response I was typing out. :steam:

    I'll just reiterate a few points I was making.

    First, the notion of there being a generic sense of "fascism" is hotly debated, and it's not just Lukacs who questions this. He certainly puts his own take on the issue, but he's not alone in questioning it. Here's a rough outline of the issue:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

    Stanley G. Payne's work is very good on this issue, and he notes many of the difficulties of identifying "fascism" in the general sense, since by it's very nature it's far more vague than say Communism or even Liberalism. He remarked that it's often easier to classify according to what fascists opposed as to what exactly they stood for, as one example. Payne also distinguishes "fascism" from the "radical right" and even traditional conservative authoritarianism.

    So to speak of "fascism" in a general sense seems mostly for convenience sakes, which I don't have much problem with. It's just I like to alert people to the reality there were significant differences between Fascism and Nazism, as well as this being a contended issue within scholarly debate.

    Second, concerning the issue of "fatherland", I noted that John Lukacs continously remarks on the distinctions between patriotism and nationalism, and how Hitler clearly followed the latter(he himself remarked "I was a nationalist, not a patriot.") I cited this extensive excerpt from one of his books Democracy and Populism(although he addresses this in other books), where he explains the difference:
    "Patriotism is defensive; nationalism is aggressive. Patriotism is the love of a particular land, with its particular traditions; nationalism is the love of something less tangible, of the myth of a "people," justifying many things, a political and ideological substitute for religion. Patriotism is old-fashioned (and, at times and in some places, aristocratic); nationalism is modern and populist . . . .

    After 1870 nationalism, almost always, turned anti-liberal, especially where liberalism was no longer principally nationalist . . . . [p. 36]

    . . . . One hundred and fifty years ago a distinction between nationalism and patriotism would have been labored, it would not have made much sense. Even now nationalism and patriotism often overlap within the minds and hearts of many people. Yet we must be aware of their differences—because of the phenomenon of populism which, unlike old-fashioned patriotism, is inseparable from the myth of a people. Populism is folkish, patriotism is not. One can be a patriot and cosmopolitan (certainly culturally so). But a populist is inevitably a nationalist of sorts. Patriotism is less racist than populism. A patriot will not exclude a person of another nationality from a community where they have lived side by side and whom he has known for many years; but a populist will always be suspicious of someone who does not seem to belong to his tribe . . . . [p. 72]

    Since it appeals to tribal and racial bonds, nationalism seems to be deeply and atavistically natural and human. Yet the trouble with it is not only that nationalism can be anti-humanist and often inhuman but that it also proceeds from one abstract assumption about human nature itself. The love for one's people is natural, but it is also categorical; it is less charitable and less deeply human than the love for one's country, a love that flows from traditions, at least akin to a love of one's family. Nationalism is both self-centered and selfish—because human love is not the love of oneself; it is the love of another. Patriotism is always more than merely biological—because charitable love is human and not merely 'natural.' Nature has, and shows, no charity." [p. 73]

    cited here
    Lukacs derives his basic distinction between patriotism and nationalism from Orwell's writing on the issue. So in this context, Lukacs would certainly be supportive of German patriotism, not German nationalism.

    So hopefully this will suffice for now.

  4. #24
    Superwoman Red Herring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,648

    Default

    While I consider myself neither a patriot nor a nationalist, I understand the distinction. The problem is that one often comes in the disguise of the other. I don't think the distinction is always this clear cut.

    The definition you quote seems a bit unorthodox as well. So having a nostalgic affection for certain landscapes, traditions, cultural features of the environment that has formed a person is patriotism? That is not the definition I was working with. Dictionary, we need a dictionary, people!

    And yes, it wil suffice for now. Dobranoc!
    The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life. - Bertrand Russell
    A herring's blog
    Johari / Nohari

  5. #25
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    It is interesting you used the term "nostalgic", since its original meaning is about returning or finding one's home; and love and attachment to one's homeland is what patriotism is about.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    You know Lark I was just about to mention Landauer.

    This was influential on the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, whose social theories were also influenced by strains of the Volkisch movement. Buber's writings on the Volk or Blood community were used(or misused) by the Nazis for their purposes, but of course like Landauer, Buber meant something different. It also parallels how the Nazis tried to use Ferdinand Tönnies's theory of Gemeinschaft, despite the fact he was anti-Nazi and a Social Democrat.
    To be honest I think that, not at the stage at which it was solidifying as Hitler's personal philosophy or even when it began to become party, then state policy but at a cultural level Volkish or "thinking with the blood" philosophies abounded the world at that time, in The Ghetto Fights Marek Edelman describes who the Zionist authorities co-operated with the Nazis believing that they shared common views about seperate ethnical homelands, in the UK even socialists where talking about the distinctiveness of anglo-saxon societies, either Orwell's account of of "Socialism and The English Genius" (although I've no idea if that book was a bit of agit prop or what it was honestly, reading his war time diaries and hearing about the secret service raids on his house and later is collusion with them makes me think he was a pretty whipped guy sometimes tried to field test his pessimism sometimes) or GDH Cole's Fabian Socialism book which was an attempt to engage with the idea of whether or not socialism would be possible if you accept the idea that anglo-saxon society would find it anathema.

    Landuer and Buber are both good examples of particularly German engagements with what I'd term ancestoral memory, Jung is another good example but he's been pigeon holed as anti-semitic or soft on Nazism too, disappointingly.

    To be honest any restructuring of society which springs from that particular well spring is going to be something quite different from a state orchestrated terror, whether its nominally left or right wing (the horse shoe conceptualisation of the political spectrum comes into play there), institutions, including the state, are probably always playing catch up with personal and cultural trends, personally I dont think that's that wrong because some trends arent worth pursuing beyond those points, but its totally rapid and grass roots when it this kind of thing is steering it.

  7. #27
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    A defining characteristic of fascism which I think makes it distinct from even militant, coercive or authoritarian conservatism is the totalitarian dimension, while other right wing ideologies might be pretty comprehensive they dont really want to intrude on every facet or aspect of life, whereas fascism frequently did, didnt Mussolini make some big deal about "fascist man" and wasnt there even some campaign for "manly foods", ie steak vs. spagetti?

    I think its defining characteristics are mobilisation and brute fraternity or "barracks socialism", no one should be dismissive or diminishing about the appeal of each, being constantly on guard and at watch or ready for action provides a lot of relief from mundane worries, it provides a sense of purpose, even importance, too and sometimes in ways more tangible than any other ideologies do. I know there's been feminist deconstructions of that which suggest its a male phenomenon but I think that's mistaken.

    This sort of thing I think IS present in things like biker gangs and perhaps that's what Mussolini's fighters brigades or the freekorps or whatever where like in the really early days, Sonny Listen (spelling) and the Hells Angels sure reminded me of that when I saw the newsreel archive footage of them encouraging people to resist hippies and get on the next plane for 'Nam, but its bound to be much more widespread in the wake of a war, lot of people in Germany and Italy brought the war home and kept fighting it, just found different foes.

  8. #28
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    You bring up many good points Lark, I wish I could address them in great depth at this moment. It's true that "volkisch" ideas were in common vogue at this time, and this was why Buber's work on the "blood community" were invoked by the defendants at Nuremburg in order to demonstrate this. There's even much debate about the connections Karl Marx had with these ideas. Here's a rough summary of that argument:
    [youtube="DdAfuryty4k"]Marxism and racism[/youtube]

    It's certainly true that in Germany at least, the line between Left and Right was often blurred since they often invoked similar ideals, similar aesthetics, etc. but with different emphasis at times. We saw this alot in the postwar period in East Germany, where they tried to protray themselves as the more authentically German state as opposed to the West German state. This was seen in how the East German army maintained many old Prussian traditions like the goose-steps, and modelled their uniforms off traditional Prussian uniforms(Reichswehr to be more exact). Here's a short demonstration of that
    [youtube="6F35yYYiikk"]East German goose-stepping[/youtube]

  9. #29
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Yeah, guys like that guy commentating on supposed connections between marxism and genocide and marxism and nazism really bug me, a lot more than the ones which casually confuse fascism and nazism, the sorts of ideological myopia and dishonesty at work have got to be incredible.

    The citations which they mention about the slavs and others, even without the context which I can readily recall, where describing how bourgous (spelling) revolution would treat those peoples and the homogenising effects of industrialisation, urbanisation and capitalism, you could as easily lift quotes to demonstrate he's sexist or an anti-theist, in fact that's the most common one "religion is the opium of the people" is so frequently mentioned without the "the heart of a heartless world" bit.

    In fact like Marx said himself most of those elements of his books, which really did provoke some fierce reactions (which I'm sure he loved), wherent his original, he was borrowing from a lot of modern liberal historians who where only too eager to see marginalised people whether they where slavs or highlanders perish because they considered them atavistic.

    Engels, I've got some great books of Engels writings independent of Marx, he comes of as the more respectable of the pair, not to mention less venomous or twisted into the bargain (Marx pestered him with begging letters when his partner had died, its just about the one time he lost his temper with Marx too and even then its an exasperated attempt to get him to think about his behaviour) its BS to suppose he was racist, he even wrote tirades against egalitarianism because he just considered it synonymous with homogenising and said it would be impossible for a goat herder to be equal to a city dweller and they'd not want it that way.

    I seriously struggle to see how anyone could reach the conclusions about the two of them like that without believing that they where engaging in a serious bit of cognitive dissonance, like who's going to advocate genocide one minute, in fact be the first with that idea in history supposedly, then publish books about how terrible conditions are for working people in London factories? Really? There's every chance there's material to cheery pick though because Marx's battles with Bakunin got pretty trollish on each side, although Bakunin advocated pan-slavism which is a different matter altogether from Marx's ideas.

    So far as the comparisons between Lenin and Hitler go I see that as simply comparisons between "great men" or successful revolutionaries or statesmen to be honest, I doubt it was dropped because it was unpopular but instead was dropped once it could be, like much of the socialist elements of the nazi movement after Strasser bit the dust and the night of the long knives ("The salute with both hands now").

    See this kind of thing bugs me because its possible to oppose two seperate things without pretending they are the same thing or some how connected. I've got to wonder at the sort of mindset which cant do that and think somethings really awry with it to try and imagine a perrenial "us vs. them" and "everything I dont like, well, its really them, its been them all along, in a different guise". That sort of "othering" really gets in the way of properly thinking and judging anything and I suspect shares more with the Nazi mindset than it would care to admit to itself. I see it as in the same strain as Orwell's newspeak or unspeak triumphant where people are going to find it difficult even to think critically and they'll literally be lost for words.

    The reality is that its possible to make good political arguments pro or contra ideological positions without those sorts of tricks so why bother with them?

  10. #30
    Senior Member Kephalos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5(?)
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    So far as the comparisons between Lenin and Hitler go I see that as simply comparisons between "great men" or successful revolutionaries or statesmen to be honest, I doubt it was dropped because it was unpopular but instead was dropped once it could be, like much of the socialist elements of the nazi movement after Strasser bit the dust and the night of the long knives ("The salute with both hands now").
    I think it is fair to compare them, if not to each other, at least to the standards that we would use in judging any one else -- especially when there are so many people, even many statesmen, without so much blood on their hands.
    Last edited by Kephalos; 12-31-2010 at 09:47 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Are Ideology and Morality like AIG and Citibank?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-09-2009, 04:47 AM
  2. Why is ideology like a prism?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 04-07-2009, 07:50 AM
  3. Can a sophisticated individual rise above ideology?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-27-2009, 04:43 PM
  4. Most apt ideology
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-16-2007, 09:46 PM
  5. Engaging Economica on Libertarian Ideology
    By reason in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-25-2007, 08:39 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO