Politics

Out of context: Reply #29044

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 33,459 Responses
  • deathboy-12

    A portion of the chapter, but I think it is relevant after obama's socialism pushes that economic nationalism was the reaction. Might be too long to even read a portion of a chapter, but it's because most people don't really care about why things are as they are. Understanding things takes time and effort and not all that exciting as sharing memes. Here's the full chapter http://www.savageleft.com/poli/r… or just go buy the book.

    ...That socialism so long as it remains theoretical is internationalist, while as soon as it is put into practice, whether in Russia or in Germany, it becomes violently nationalist, is one of the reasons why "liberal socialism" as most people in the Western world imagine it is purely theoretical, while the practice of socialism is everywhere totalitarian.'

    Collectivism has no room for the wide humanitarianism of [classical] liberalism but only if for the narrow particularism of the totalitarian. If the "community" or the state are prior to the individual, if they have ends of their own independent of and superior to those of the individuals, only those individuals who work for the same ends can be regarded as members of the community.

    It is a necessary consequence of this view that a person is respected only as a member of the group, that is, only if and in so far as he works for the recognized common ends, and that he derives his whole dignity only from this membership and not merely from being a man.

    Indeed, the very concepts of humanity and therefore of any form of internationalism are entirely products of the individualist view of man, and there can be no place for them in a collectivist system of thought.

    Apart from the basic fact that the community of collectivism can extend only as far as the unity of purpose of the individuals exists or can be created, several contributory factors strengthen the tendency of collectivism to become particularist and exclusive.

    Of these, one of the most important is that the desire of the individual to identify himself with a group is very frequently the result of a feeling of inferiority and that therefore his want will be satisfied only if membership of the group confers some superiority over outsiders.

    Sometimes, it seems, the very fact that these violent instincts which the individual knows he must curb within the group can be given a free range in the collective action toward the outsider, becomes a further inducement for merging personality in that of the group.

    There is a profound truth expressed in the title of Reinhold Niebu's Moral Man and Immoral Society however little we can follow him in the conclusion he draws from his thesis. There is, indeed, as he says elsewhere, "an increasing tendency among modern men to imagine themselves ethical because they have delegated their vices to larger and larger groups." To act on behalf of a group seems to free people of many of the moral restraints which control their behavior as individuals within the group.

    The definitely antagonistic attitude which most planners take toward internationalism is further explained by the fact that in the existing world all outside contacts of a group are obstacles to their effectively planning the sphere in which they can attempt it. It is therefore no accident that, as the editor of one of the most comprehensive collective studies on planning has discovered to his chagrin, "most 'planners' are militant nationalists."

    The nationalist and imperialist propensities of socialist planners, much more common than is generally recognized, are not always as flagrant as, for example, in the case of the Webbs and some of the other early Fabians, with whom enthusiasm for planning was characteristically combined with the veneration for the large and powerful political units and a contempt for the small state.

    The historian Elie Halevy, speaking of the Webbs when he first knew them forty years ago, records that their socialism was profoundly anti-[ classical ]-liberal.

    "They did not hate the Tories, indeed they were extraordinarily lenient to them, but they had no mercy for Gladstonian Liberalism. It was the time of the Boer War and both the advanced liberals and the men who were beginning to form the Labour Party had generously sided with the Boers against British Imperialism, in the name of freedom and humanity.

    But the two Webbs and their friend, Bernard Shaw, stood apart. They were ostentatiously imperialistic. The independence of small nations might mean something to the liberal individualist. It meant nothing to collectivists like themselves.

    I can still hear Sidney Webb explaining to me that the future belonged to the great administrative nations, where the officials govern and the police keep order." And elsewhere Halevy quotes George Bernard Shaw, arguing, about the same time, that "the world is to the big and powerful states by necessity; and the little ones must come within their border or be crushed out of existence."'

    I have quoted at length these passages, which would not surprise one in a description of the German ancestors of national socialism, because they provide so characteristic an example of that glorification of power which easily leads from socialism to nationalism and which profoundly affects the ethical views of all collectivists.

    So far as the rights of small nations are concerned, Marx and Engels were little better than most other consistent collectivists, and the views occasionally expressed about Czechs or Poles resemble those of contemporary National Socialists.'

    deathboy -12Permalink
    UpvoteDownvote
    Flag
    • really? obama's socialism? after the guy bail out wall street...Salarrue
    • Word salad.kingregis
    • You mean this isn't what the kids are reading these days?Fax_Benson
    • LOL Deathboy got Pwned by SalarrueGuyFawkes
    • yup. wall street rebounded within 18 months, from 7k back up to 13.BonSeff
    • Loren ipsum in Englishmonospaced
    • is a bail out not corporate socialism salarrue? Perhaps you'd call it a style of cronisym. But than we'd just be splitting hairs ignoring the collectivist naturdeathboy
    • e of it. And considering that was only one aspect of his legislation not even his major signature programs.deathboy
    • And Hayek is wordy. But that people cant understand it shows quite a poor level of comprehension skills. Dont blame the writer this is not finnegans wake.deathboy
    • a guyfawkes name and no understanding of moores individualism given to that identity. like a dumb kid wearing a che teedeathboy
    • thats probably a pwn but is it still a pwn if it goes over the audiences head... perhaps this - go peg your dad while he masturbates to your mom fucking the dogdeathboy
    • what the fuck are you rambling about?monospaced
    • wooooosh is the sound i just hearddeathboy
    • but mono if you really are concerned in understanding what you're missing i'll help. i cant stand elitist assholes who make no attemptsdeathboy
    • or even worse the people who spit shit they don't understand and when asked to clarify pull the elite routine, like a ask for explanation is validation.deathboy
    • you're hearing things againmonospaced
    • im trying. was it a reference you are unfamilar with? or was the comment more off the cuff and you rly dont care to understand. but you'd like to try mockerydeathboy
    • "obama's socialism" haha, what planet are some of you americans on?fadein11
    • fade how do you define socialism?deathboy
    • because I think obama's policies as a large whole were mostly more socialistic or perhaps i should use collectivist as the term. his signature policy obamacaredeathboy
    • clearly. his foreign policy was same ol same ol of nationalism (collectivism, a derivative to all socialist ideals as Hayek points out) bailouts, green energydeathboy
    • im really trying to think if he did one rollback of government authority that empowered individualism. but i cant think of one, help me out if you know of one.deathboy
    • oh wait fade you are uk. u should be closer to hayek historically than us political structure. u probably think there is a big difference between a rep & demdeathboy
    • you can have a pass as much as hayek speaks of tories im not super familiar in that definition being US. I can have an idea, but i really have hardtime definindeathboy
    • party affiliation and a sense of overall difference. i can only understand the direct stuff. where as US the parties try to differentiate for election purposesdeathboy
    • but the 2 parties are hardly different, and you find very few reps that wont flop towards popular opinion.deathboy
    • You should move out from Reno - all the sun has fucked your tiny mid.face_melter
    • that probably is something most don't get here let alone out of country. plus your idea of socialism is much different than the USdeathboy
    • you didn't get a chance to not really have it as much as we did. been a bitch to one king or ruler for generation after generation. america is pretty uniquedeathboy
    • u do understand facemelter i find that comment to have 0 merit. It does not bother me but your choice in simple insult allows me to think your kind of an idiotdeathboy
    • if you want me to treat you like an adult act like one. or stay at the kids table and play around with your lipstick and go on dates with mooredeathboy
    • example face... a challenge to a single statement than LCD character attacks when one displays they can not think of such a thingdeathboy
    • hayek made a mistake in the statement "Of these, one of the most important is that the desire of the individual to identify " paragraphdeathboy
    • its opininated and might exist with high probability i find his framing of it to be reaching. i think id prefer more than that to go arounddeathboy
    • or leave it out and make it more a specific case than a generalization. that is an adult response, but than again what defines adult and age? wa wa wadeathboy
    • the sad part is that most people have not been trained to learn through reason. they learn by a chosen person at the front of the class. if what i said came frodeathboy
    • m a news article or post of a person of "leadership" standing people would more than likely blindly follow. which is the problem with the socialistic teachingdeathboy
    • style in the US based dewey education style. Id love to see less facts remembering and more independent thought and less standardize testingdeathboy
    • general concern is will this be on the test vs is this true?deathboy
    • the definition of socialism is v.clear and is what it is. How do you have a different definition? Is it alternative socialism?fadein11
    • no my definition is very much aligned with hayek. that said obamas socialism wouldnt derive laughter unless your opinion differed. care to share your reasoningdeathboy
    • break it down 4u. to laugh at the post and my comment is to to allude that my view of socialism is incorrect. but u dont say how it is incorrect.deathboy
    • im curious what you thought was funny and is so wrong considering the idea of obama socialism. perhaps its u felt obama socialism wasnt marxist enough. or wasdeathboy
    • closer to facism. or even hypothetical leninism. give some substance to go off of. join the adult table. or play in basic mockery of ignorancedeathboy
    • to know history is there is almost endless branches of the same philosophical collectivist philosophy. and turds argue the difference in branches likedeathboy
    • religious turds argue the texts of religion. and it all boil down to whom plans for whom with righteousness. id really like to know your turd.deathboy
    • Yep my amusement comes from those on the right calling centrists socialists. They are all neolib puppets. Would you also consider Clinton a 'socialist'?fadein11
    • ...so much hand holding. i know stating the obvious wont help my cause but for fucks sake ppl are idiots and if i was a lesser man state they should be removeddeathboy
    • Was it his attempt to improve your totally fucked healthcare system that made you think he was a socialist?fadein11
    • form this form of media where everyone thinks they say something of importance. and trust me i see the illusive hypocrisy in stating opinions, and some are opindeathboy
    • ions like the hayek i called out but most are largely hard cold facts. shit so obvious that should be accepted like 2 + 2 = 4 before realizing the identitydeathboy
    • of numbering systems and logic behind it.deathboy
    • clinton id call socialist. sure she was less political believer and more about personal gains putting her more into i guess a facist region, but at the end ofdeathboy
    • day those are just threads of the same shit that enables it all. collectivism, vs individualism.deathboy
    • fadein has socialism improved and as cheapen the priced of care anywhere in the world? provide an example?deathboy
    • right now obamacare is skyrocketing costs as ppl like myself said it would based on elementary economicsdeathboy
    • we could simply offer universal coverage through medicare and cap it. and call it universal. after all everyone pays in. and be a shitstormdeathboy
    • we'd also already be spending above canada level of GDP and provide less. to cut costs we'd need to limit wages and costs outside supply and demanddeathboy
    • the problem is ppl who follow socialism understand only as far as what they will gain from it and ignore the restdeathboy
    • and if you really care an improvement to our healthcare would be to stop subsidizing employer based care. get individuals involved withotu 3rd partydeathboy
    • coverage over state lines. the way hc works is like a car insurance that covers petro, tire rotation, general maintenance. its not hard to see how such thingsdeathboy
    • escalate. why an appendectomy which hasn't changed, has gone from like 600 to 200k. i have a hard time believing you have any idea what you are talking aboutdeathboy
    • in the healthcare field let alone in basic socialism or collectivism. you only know a few slogans and virtue signalsdeathboy
    • I wasn't saying socialism is an answer. I was questioning your view that Obama was socialist. You are rambling now. Read my comments. It's v. fucking clear.fadein11
    • yuri?monospaced
    • pedo?GuyFawkes
    • #PedoBoyGuyFawkes
    • #pedoslivesmattermonospaced
    • your're* ffsfadein11
    • you're* lolfadein11
    • yea obama was a socialist. I don't do the micro differences like liberal socialist, or whatever. that micro naming shit is a dodgedeathboy
    • and actually you suggested socialized medicine was the answer. and again leave the typing correction to the kids table. a mark of an idiot if that is what youdeathboy
    • concern yourself with. typically an adult would say well I don't find obama socialist because... and elaborate why its different from hayeks interpretationdeathboy
    • but maybe you dont get it. a quote comes to mind. "when language is used without true significance, it loses its purpose as a means of communication and becomesdeathboy
    • an end in itself" the pointless insults, voting, and signaling. its almost like communication is dead. stupid social mediadeathboy
    • trump is the type of leader you not only have earned but truely deservedeathboy
    • speak for yourselfmonospaced
    • Thanks for validating that quote mono. Anyways this has been interesting. We have lots of downvotes and insults and nothing is related to the content. Im suredeathboy
    • nobody read it, or probably even noticed the title of the chapter. Only thing people cared about was reacting to my intro and a few key word that triggereddeathboy
    • insults and my handle. I think that's pretty much what we can take away from this. And its pretty representative of this thread on a whole. pretty juveniledeathboy
    • @deathboy, er nope derp I can see a centrist politician when I see one. Socialism isn't dipping your toe in it. Obama was not a socialist lol. you right wingfadein11
    • nuts need to recalibrate. or spend some time in Europe.fadein11
    • man fade you really don't get the material im addressing and still reacting to the trigger. but since you are hung up on the term ill try to helpdeathboy
    • there is no socialist, as bernie sanders would say venezuela isn't socialist, socialist is a term much like BBW or fat or thick. its splitting hairs, which bydeathboy
    • the rest of the book addresses and is eurocentric. simply put obamas executive orders, obamacare, green policies, even a lot of his foreign policy were verydeathboy
    • anti classical liberalism. they were mostly policies strengthening and growing gov bureacracy. really you should read it and quit with the media word triggersdeathboy
    • if you did i think you see how asinine it is to suggest i'm a right wing nut job and how wrong your associations aredeathboy
    • or at least google some cliff notes on what hayek wrote so you can at least look like you have an idea of what you are talking about to me.deathboy
    • read the material prove me wrong that u dont just spit the weak soundbyte arguments from a few trigger words and make decisions based on false associationsdeathboy
    • because so far my assumptions on this political thread still are correct. u proved u responded off the trigger. and even accused me of being right wing.deathboy
    • i was actually expecting the dismissal of hey why would we talk about politics in a GD forum. you expect to have real discussion in this place its like treatindeathboy
    • 4chan as a place of quality discussion. not just validation to my claims. actually seems worsedeathboy
    Show [[ numHiddenNotes ]] more notesAdd Note
    SaveCancel

View thread