Which ideology do you consider the most dangerous? - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Which ideology do you consider the most dangerous?

Communism/Marxism
19
14%
Socialism
2
1%
Anarchism (leftist)
6
4%
Centre-left (Left-liberalism, Social democracy)
9
7%
Centrism
1
1%
Centre-right (Conservatism)
1
1%
Classical liberalism (Smith)
1
1%
Neoliberalism (Friedman)
27
20%
Anarcho-capitalism
11
8%
Extreme nationalism (far right)
50
37%
Other
9
7%
By Doug64
#13542778
Neoliberalism may be an economic downer, but it doesn't typically stack up bodies in job lots like, say, communism, ultranationalism, or Islamism. And of those three, communism is pretty much a spent force.
User avatar
By Cheesecake_Marmalade
#13542797
Neoliberalism isn't all bad, Rei. I mean after all, the spread of capitalism around the globe is creating a global community, knocking down economic barriers and all that jazz.

Well, it's not bad for me anyway. You'd probably hate that, though. :lol:
User avatar
By Rei Murasame
#13542997
Yes, I'm definitely hating it! :lol:

Cheesecake_Marmalade wrote:Well, it's not bad for me anyway.

So we've heard! You know, this is one of the reasons I kind of respect the Left's ingenuity even though I'm against them, because there is just something incredible about how the Free Marketeers (damn them) think that they are harming you, while they are in fact helping you to build bridges to everywhere. How did you lot manage to get such a neat arrangement worked out there?

Leftists (In this case Leon Trotsky's people) were actually thinking when they wrote:The revolutionary party of the proletariat can base itself only upon an international program corresponding to the character of the present epoch, the epoch of the highest development and collapse of capitalism. An international communist program is in no case the sum total of national programs or an amalgam of their common features. The international program must proceed directly from an analysis of the conditions and tendencies of world economy and of the world political system taken as a whole in all its connections and contradictions, that is, with the mutually antagonistic interdependence of its separate parts. In the present epoch, to a much larger extent than in the past, the national orientation of the proletariat must and can flow only from a world orientation and not vice versa. Herein lies the basic and primary difference between communist internationalism and all varieties of national socialism....”

He continued: “Linking up countries and continents that stand on different levels of development into a system of mutual dependence and antagonism, leveling out the various stages of their development and at the same time immediately enhancing the differences between them, and ruthlessly counterposing one country to another, world economy has become a mighty reality which holds sway over the economic life of individual countries and continents. This basic fact alone invests the idea of a world communist party with a supreme reality.


Cheesecake_Marmalade wrote:I mean after all, the spread of capitalism around the globe is creating a global community
Leon Trotsky wrote:This basic fact alone invests the idea of a world communist party with a supreme reality.


The thing I'm wondering though, Cheesecake, is how come there has been literally no attempt by the die-hard liberal-capitalist pundits and thinkers to explain in any way to their adherents how they will be planning to stop you lot from piggyback riding on their movement? Do they simply not have a plan? Are they unaware of what the Left is really about? Or are they just hoping that the tired old method of sending out generic riot police at generic protesters will work indefinitely?

Really, in a sense it's like they're actually giving you the very equipment that you'll be using to fight against them.
User avatar
By Cheesecake_Marmalade
#13543001
Rei wrote:So we've heard! You know, this is one of the reasons I kind of respect the Left's ingenuity even though I'm against them, because there is just something incredible about how the Free Marketeers (damn them) think that they are harming you, while they are in fact helping you to build bridges to everywhere. How did you lot manage to get such a neat arrangement worked out there?

Well, that's the thing. It is one of the reasons I believe that socialism is inevitable. While everything that liberals do leads to us, nothing they do makes society more compatible to you. :p

The thing I'm wondering though, Cheesecake, is how come there has been literally no effort by the die-hard liberal-capitalist pundits and thinkers to explain in any way to their adherents how they will be planning to stop you lot from piggyback riding on their movement? Do they simply not have a plan? Are they unaware of what the Left is really about? Or are they just hoping that the tired old method of sending out generic riot police at generic protesters will work indefinitely?

Really, in a sense it's like they're actually giving you the very equipment that you'll be using to fight against them.

Well, I just think that many die-hard capitalists don't realize that you guys are their best friends. That's what people realized in the 30's and 40's, the only thing that can protect a country from socialism is far-right nationalism. It may not be the most economically efficient system, but it does stem the progress of the economy that will inevitably lead to socialism. But then, they also don't realize that capitalism can only be temporary. They assume that there is permanence to a system that has only been around for three hundred or so years, when in fact the mode of production has changed many times very gradually.

Then, I would levy the same criticism on you. ;)
User avatar
By Dave
#13543191
I see no particular reason why capitalism is necessarily temporary, and frankly I think Marxist teleology has it backwards. Socialism is a transitional step to capitalism in much of the world. Socialist states forcibly industrialized peasant societies which did not desire an end to communal peasant agrarianism. After dragging their states into industrial modernity, riches break down ideological discipline and political elites become capitalist elites.

In any case, the distinction between capitalism and socialism is sophistic. Both are industrial, managerial systems. The functional difference has little to do with exploitation (value transference exists in all systems) but with the degree of statism. The high level of statism implicit in socialism also makes it highly compatible with nationalism, so don't hold your breath on the far right holding back socialism. Hell, in practice all socialist regimes have been nationalist. There's some truth to the circular ideological spectrum.
User avatar
By Cheesecake_Marmalade
#13543546
Dave wrote:I see no particular reason why capitalism is necessarily temporary, and frankly I think Marxist teleology has it backwards.

If you are attempting to imply that Marxism requires that socialism or communism will be a permanent system either, that is incorrect. It's really not "getting it backwards", because there is no implication that any single system of collective governance is permanent, only that it is quite probable that, due to the nature of how the market is developing, ie becoming more socialized, socialism will happen.

Socialism is a transitional step to capitalism in much of the world. Socialist states forcibly industrialized peasant societies which did not desire an end to communal peasant agrarianism.

What is socialism if it is not developed from capitalism? Some would say, that it is simply a form of governance that incorporates the idea of being for the workers into the national mythos. I mean, socialism can only really come from a state that had previously been capitalist, because by the Marxist definition of socialism, it must be a "dictatorship of the proletariat". Also, some would even say that socialism needs to be global in order to survive, or else external pressures will retard the shift from capitalism to socialism, and cause it to fail.

After dragging their states into industrial modernity, riches break down ideological discipline and political elites become capitalist elites.

This really only supports the idea that I mentioned above. Since the majority of the capital is concentrated in the industrialized, capitalist world, it will be expedient for the people that run the country to be able to participate in the global marketplace, especially in a previously agrarian society that has not established a self-sustaining economy.

In any case, the distinction between capitalism and socialism is sophistic. Both are industrial, managerial systems. The functional difference has little to do with exploitation (value transference exists in all systems) but with the degree of statism.

That is incorrect. There are a few qualitative differences between capitalism and socialism, namely the ruling class, ideology, and social organization. These are not small differences that you can brush off, as they make up a large part of Marxism. This is about as condescending as me saying that nationalism is foolish because there is no functional difference between all humans. Which I would say, but still it would be condescending. ;)

The high level of statism implicit in socialism also makes it highly compatible with nationalism, so don't hold your breath on the far right holding back socialism. Hell, in practice all socialist regimes have been nationalist. There's some truth to the circular ideological spectrum.

Except, that nationalism killed all socialist regimes. So, in practice, socialism is incompatible with nationalism (because nationalism is incompatible with reality).
User avatar
By Dave
#13543566
Cheesecake_Marmalade wrote:If you are attempting to imply that Marxism requires that socialism or communism will be a permanent system either, that is incorrect. It's really not "getting it backwards", because there is no implication that any single system of collective governance is permanent, only that it is quite probable that, due to the nature of how the market is developing, ie becoming more socialized, socialism will happen.

Galbraith made this argument cogently in The New Industrial State, but what has actually happened? Business interests have come to dominate state interests and are treating the entire world as private booty. Markets are actually get less socialized, assuming you mean state ownership. Now it's even fashionable for governments to privatize roads, allowing private interests to extract enormous economic rents from natural monopolies. Every new, big initiative now must involve the "market". Global warming is a good example--everyone is proposing cap and trade, allowing financiers to collect enormous economic rents instead of simply taxing carbon.

I realize you're not saying socialism is "inevitable", but this smacks of Marxist teleology.

Cheesecake_Marmalade wrote:What is socialism if it is not developed from capitalism? Some would say, that it is simply a form of governance that incorporates the idea of being for the workers into the national mythos. I mean, socialism can only really come from a state that had previously been capitalist, because by the Marxist definition of socialism, it must be a "dictatorship of the proletariat". Also, some would even say that socialism needs to be global in order to survive, or else external pressures will retard the shift from capitalism to socialism, and cause it to fail.

In practice socialism has meant central planning and the elimination of most forms of property. This does not need to be developed from capitalism at all, despite what the prophet Marx had to say. With the exception of Central Europe (where socialism was imposed my military force) the capitalist sector of most countries that went socialist was very small. They were all dominated by peasant agriculture and still had feudal lords. The main agent of revolution has not been the proletariat, but actual peasants.

Could socialism emerge from an advanced capitalist economy? Sure, but it hasn't happened yet, unless you want to count total war economies (but these still had property).

Cheesecake_Marmalade wrote:This really only supports the idea that I mentioned above. Since the majority of the capital is concentrated in the industrialized, capitalist world, it will be expedient for the people that run the country to be able to participate in the global marketplace, especially in a previously agrarian society that has not established a self-sustaining economy.

I agree that a rational society avoids socialism for that reason, especially since the collapse of the USSR. But then, why did the USSR itself abandon socialism? They were able to import or steal most Western technology they needed and were doing fine. China also bears examination. While abandoning socialism has been useful for them, they were doing fairly well under socialism despite being isolated from the Soviet world system. I think the simplest answer is that eventually elites get tired of socialism because it doesn't give them enough status. What's the point of being at the top of society if all it gets you is a Lada and a shitty dacha?

Cheesecake_Marmalade wrote:That is incorrect. There are a few qualitative differences between capitalism and socialism, namely the ruling class, ideology, and social organization. These are not small differences that you can brush off, as they make up a large part of Marxism. This is about as condescending as me saying that nationalism is foolish because there is no functional difference between all humans. Which I would say, but still it would be condescending. ;)

Every society has a ruling class. In industrial societies, it's managers, academics, top level civil servants, etc. The Marxist belief that capitalists comprise the ruling class isn't true, Jeff Immelt is much more powerful than most capitalists. These people are interchangeable in socialist and capitalist societies. Ideology is different, but no one cares about ideology except nerds. I don't agree that social organization is all that different. People go to work, get paid for it, buy shit, start families, etc. Please elaborate on why you think it's different.

Cheesecake_Marmalade wrote:Except, that nationalism killed all socialist regimes. So, in practice, socialism is incompatible with nationalism (because nationalism is incompatible with reality).

Nationalism guides many states, both past and present. It has brought some states fantastic success, but it has brought others disaster too. It seems to be very much compatible with reality. How has nationalism killed all socialist regimes? And if all socialist regimes are killed by nationalism, what's the solution?
By Kallinikos
#13543733
Could socialism emerge from an advanced capitalist economy? Sure, but it hasn't happened yet,


Czechoslovakia in 1946. Czechs massively voted for the communists, offsetting anti-communist Slovaks. Overall communists obtained majority in that country.

Czech part, precisely, was fairly advanced and industrial.

Some in the west, considering that this country was the most "western" in central Europe (geographically as well as because it was developed, and had a democratic tradition) feared a revolution that somehow came "according to theory", and that they could be next.

Of course, we know what followed, lust for Marshall plan, Soviet rebuking, national crisis then downright coup d'état...but still, as an exemple it shouldn't be dismissed.
User avatar
By Cheesecake_Marmalade
#13543997
Dave wrote:Galbraith made this argument cogently in The New Industrial State, but what has actually happened? Business interests have come to dominate state interests and are treating the entire world as private booty. Markets are actually get less socialized, assuming you mean state ownership.

No, I do not mean state ownership. Socialization of the economy, in this case, means that more and more the economy depends on the work of people in urban settings, people who are more educated than the average farmer and are connected to the world at large. It also means that the entire world needs to work in cohesion in order for the economies of individual countries to function. One of the most pressing examples of this is the dependence of the West on cheap, factory labor in foreign countries. Although some individual countries do not necessarily gear their economies towards production, and more just the manipulation of financial capital, this investment in third world countries itself creates a global marketplace. In fact, I think this answer covers my other implicit point that the so-called socialist countries that were formerly agrarian societies needed to fail and become capitalist in order for true global socialism to be possible, because self-sufficient production economies just do not develop fast enough compared to capitalist economies. But, the stability that socialism offers will be of utility to countries that have already developed a high standard of living and a high GDP. It is one of the reasons that many Marxists believe that socialism in one country could probably only work for America, because at this point the advantage of growth seems to be lower than the disadvantages that crises bring.

Now it's even fashionable for governments to privatize roads, allowing private interests to extract enormous economic rents from natural monopolies. Every new, big initiative now must involve the "market". Global warming is a good example--everyone is proposing cap and trade, allowing financiers to collect enormous economic rents instead of simply taxing carbon.

Global warming is indeed another good example of an increasing socialization of the economy. You're right, the solutions offered are useless, but you will notice that the actions of first world countries are partially being motivated by the inability to act of third world countries, which probably create just as much or more carbon emissions than the rest of the developed world. The EU too has employed the strategy of allowing developing countries to create more emissions than undeveloped countries. Facts are that the world will have to come to some kind of agreement on how to deal with global warning. These kinds of problems that create a global impact need a centralized, supra-national governmental body in order to be dealt with. If nationalism was the primary concern of the globe, everyone would just create more carbon emissions in order to be able to compete with other countries that are ignoring the problem.

Regardless of the form of the solution, I think it is perfectly demonstrable that it speaks towards the effect that I am talking about.

I realize you're not saying socialism is "inevitable", but this smacks of Marxist teleology.

I would love to purge modern leftism of its dense teleology. I do not much enjoy being lumped in with ignorant college students, liberal-feminists, potheads, and other degenerates/parasites that have infiltrated the left. But, you have to admit, this is not just a leftist phenomenon. It too has happened to even nationalists, social conservatives, and others that would normally be aligned with the far right. So we both have people on our side that are idiots, and neither of our mainstream iterations really speak towards how either of us truly perceive the world to be. So, when the right-wing brings out this criticism, it seems almost like attacking the left with a double-edged sword.

I agree that a rational society avoids socialism for that reason, especially since the collapse of the USSR. But then, why did the USSR itself abandon socialism? They were able to import or steal most Western technology they needed and were doing fine. China also bears examination. While abandoning socialism has been useful for them, they were doing fairly well under socialism despite being isolated from the Soviet world system. I think the simplest answer is that eventually elites get tired of socialism because it doesn't give them enough status. What's the point of being at the top of society if all it gets you is a Lada and a shitty dacha?

I think I covered this point enough above.

Every society has a ruling class.

:eh: How does that change in socialism? It's not called "the dictatorship of the proletariat" because everyone gets to join. The proles qualify as the ruling class. Just as the bourgeoisie is the ruling class, even if not every member of the bourgeoisie is in power.

The Marxist belief that capitalists comprise the ruling class isn't true

The bourgeoisie comprises both the capitalist and political classes. Politics is built around benefiting the bourgeoisie and the petit bourgeoisie, although even that alliance is slowly being degraded by economies of scale, which has the consequence of forcing capital into the hands of a few in order to be able to compete globally.

Besides, in capitalism money is everything. It only stands to reason that those who have money are probably in power, don't you think?

Ideology is different, but no one cares about ideology except nerds.

Ideology is an unavoidable qualitative difference. In fact, you use a qualitative observation to discount ideology, which is sort of ironic since you could only accept your conclusion if the assumption that one should not care about ideology is contained within your ideology. :hmm: Either way, it's pretty circular logic, don't you think? Besides, ideology here is being used to represent "motivations" or "causes". You cannot discount those, as they influence immensely how a system will handle a given problem.

Nationalism guides many states, both past and present. It has brought some states fantastic success, but it has brought others disaster too. It seems to be very much compatible with reality. How has nationalism killed all socialist regimes? And if all socialist regimes are killed by nationalism, what's the solution?

Well, I explained above that nationalism, after a certain point, becomes a hindrance more than it is a help. But specifically as it concerns socialist states, nationalism acts as an external and internal problem for socialist regimes. For instance, many socialist movements in Europe were squashed by nationalists, in Germany, Spain, Italy, and Greece. To some, it took the form of fascism. Then, there is the issue that nationalism not only motivates socialist countries to act against each other, as in the case of China and the Soviets, but it also creates animosity on a global level, as with the case of the Soviets/Chinese with America. Socialism has also been fought against by American nationalists attempting to protect global capitalists interests in Vietnam and Korea, as well as Cuba and other South American countries. Even those countries have been motivated towards isolationism by an odd mix of leftism and nationalism. Also, look at the case of Korea, where nationalism has led to a degenerate military state.

I think there is plenty of evidence that nationalism has hindered the global cohesion of socialism, and harmed the states that have participated in it. In any case, I think that nationalism and internationalism are specifically incompatible, and international co-operation is necessary in order to form a united, global proletariat, but I figured you wouldn't accept that as an answer. :p
User avatar
By Dave
#13544173
Cheesecake_Marmalade wrote:No, I do not mean state ownership. Socialization of the economy, in this case, means that more and more the economy depends on the work of people in urban settings, people who are more educated than the average farmer and are connected to the world at large. It also means that the entire world needs to work in cohesion in order for the economies of individual countries to function. One of the most pressing examples of this is the dependence of the West on cheap, factory labor in foreign countries. Although some individual countries do not necessarily gear their economies towards production, and more just the manipulation of financial capital, this investment in third world countries itself creates a global marketplace. In fact, I think this answer covers my other implicit point that the so-called socialist countries that were formerly agrarian societies needed to fail and become capitalist in order for true global socialism to be possible, because self-sufficient production economies just do not develop fast enough compared to capitalist economies. But, the stability that socialism offers will be of utility to countries that have already developed a high standard of living and a high GDP. It is one of the reasons that many Marxists believe that socialism in one country could probably only work for America, because at this point the advantage of growth seems to be lower than the disadvantages that crises bring.

I am not sure why this is called socialization, although I know Marxists use the term this way. A basic principle of Marxism is that a certain level of technology gives you a certain kind of social organization. I believe Marx said something to the effect that the hand mill gives you the feudal lord, the steam mill gives you the industrial capitalist. To a certain extent this is true, but there are factors beyond the technological means of production. America was originally an agrarian society, but did not have feudalism. The South had slavery, a supposedly older form of social organization. Geography explained the difference.

The existence of a world-wide industrial system requires some level of planning and cooperation. I have never understood why this planning and cooperation necessarily leads to socialism. States everywhere have always engaged in some form of planning and administration, and corporate bureaucracies themselves perform similar functions on behalf of private interests. Cooperation occurs when it is in the interests of all parties and one party does not have overwhelming dominance.

Cheesecake_Marmalade wrote:Global warming is indeed another good example of an increasing socialization of the economy. You're right, the solutions offered are useless, but you will notice that the actions of first world countries are partially being motivated by the inability to act of third world countries, which probably create just as much or more carbon emissions than the rest of the developed world. The EU too has employed the strategy of allowing developing countries to create more emissions than undeveloped countries. Facts are that the world will have to come to some kind of agreement on how to deal with global warning. These kinds of problems that create a global impact need a centralized, supra-national governmental body in order to be dealt with. If nationalism was the primary concern of the globe, everyone would just create more carbon emissions in order to be able to compete with other countries that are ignoring the problem.

Regardless of the form of the solution, I think it is perfectly demonstrable that it speaks towards the effect that I am talking about.

Global warming is a good example of a problem that requires international cooperation and planning. A global supranational government would be equipped to deal with the problem, but the problem is also one which could be dealt with by global negotiation and cooperation. The method would be less efficient, but these sorts of issues exist at the national level as well with federalized states compared to centralized ones. Even if we had a global government, it wouldn't necessarily be socialist at all. In fact, it would probably be repressive in order to protect the wealth of the most highly industrialized countries which would necessarily dominate such a system.

Cheesecake_Marmalade wrote:I would love to purge modern leftism of its dense teleology. I do not much enjoy being lumped in with ignorant college students, liberal-feminists, potheads, and other degenerates/parasites that have infiltrated the left. But, you have to admit, this is not just a leftist phenomenon. It too has happened to even nationalists, social conservatives, and others that would normally be aligned with the far right. So we both have people on our side that are idiots, and neither of our mainstream iterations really speak towards how either of us truly perceive the world to be. So, when the right-wing brings out this criticism, it seems almost like attacking the left with a double-edged sword.

I don't think this responds to my criticism at all. You're not really making a case for why you think socialism will happen, hence I am reminded of Marxist teleology. I certainly would not attempt to paint you with the same brush I reserve for campus stoner morons and wild eyed minority activists.

Cheesecake_Marmalade wrote:I think I covered this point enough above.

I don't want to be rude, but I don't agree. You gave no convincing explanation for why the USSR collapsed, despite having been a highly successful socialist state which had security from the capitalist world.

Cheesecake_Marmalade wrote: :eh: How does that change in socialism? It's not called "the dictatorship of the proletariat" because everyone gets to join. The proles qualify as the ruling class. Just as the bourgeoisie is the ruling class, even if not every member of the bourgeoisie is in power.

The proletariat is not the ruling class in socialism, not even in the early phases. In the revolutionary phase the ruling class consists of the highest levels of the communist party and military commanders. As socialism matures the ruling class expands to incorporate enterprise directors, high level civil servants, science academies, etc. The sorts of people in the ruling class and their functions are identical to the ruling class in capitalist countries, it's just that they usually have a lower standard of living. You could argue these people are proletarians, but that's like saying Jack Welch is a proletarian because he worked for a salary.

Cheesecake_Marmalade wrote:The bourgeoisie comprises both the capitalist and political classes. Politics is built around benefiting the bourgeoisie and the petit bourgeoisie, although even that alliance is slowly being degraded by economies of scale, which has the consequence of forcing capital into the hands of a few in order to be able to compete globally.

Besides, in capitalism money is everything. It only stands to reason that those who have money are probably in power, don't you think?

No, money is not everything in capitalism. You are ignoring non-monetary forms of status. Someone who works for a non-profit and draws a $70,000 salary has much higher status than someone who draws a similar salary from a corporation. To a significant degree power is captured by groups that invest the most effort in having it, and this effort takes non-monetary forms as well.

To give you an example from another field, there is a saying that history is written by the victors. This isn't true, it's written by historians. Until the 1960s Civil War historiography in the United States was dominated the lost cause narrative and the Dunning School, even though the North won the war.

Politics is built around people who spend a lot of effort on politics. This intersects with Marxist classes you named. People always complain about money in elections, but the sums are relatively small and the political classes are often trying to limit the influence of money. The media has much more influence over elections than money, just look at Steve Forbes for an example. To give you an example from my life, I have a lot more money than my friends who work in politics. However, because they direct most of their efforts to politics they have more political influence than I do. They also have normal views, and thus it is easier for them to politically influence the system because of basic ingroup/outgroup dynamics.

Cheesecake_Marmalade wrote:Ideology is an unavoidable qualitative difference. In fact, you use a qualitative observation to discount ideology, which is sort of ironic since you could only accept your conclusion if the assumption that one should not care about ideology is contained within your ideology. :hmm: Either way, it's pretty circular logic, don't you think? Besides, ideology here is being used to represent "motivations" or "causes". You cannot discount those, as they influence immensely how a system will handle a given problem.

I don't think this is true in the long term. After revolutionary fervor dies down, approaches are largely pragmatic. The approaches differ by culture and civilization. For instance, France and Russia are much more statist than America is. Some would call this ideology, but it runs a lot deeper than that--look at the common threads in approaches to government between the Russian Empire, USSR, and Russian Federation despite all three having different official ideologies.

I don't know if you've seen the film Network, but there's a scene where the guy goes, "What do you suppose the Russians talk about in their councils of state? Karl Marx? No, they get out their linear programming charts and plan their investments, just like us."

I think this actually supports the Marxist approach somewhat, because it shows how systems tend to grow in somewhat similar ways based on factors like technology and geography rather than according to ideology.

Cheesecake_Marmalade wrote:Well, I explained above that nationalism, after a certain point, becomes a hindrance more than it is a help. But specifically as it concerns socialist states, nationalism acts as an external and internal problem for socialist regimes. For instance, many socialist movements in Europe were squashed by nationalists, in Germany, Spain, Italy, and Greece. To some, it took the form of fascism. Then, there is the issue that nationalism not only motivates socialist countries to act against each other, as in the case of China and the Soviets, but it also creates animosity on a global level, as with the case of the Soviets/Chinese with America. Socialism has also been fought against by American nationalists attempting to protect global capitalists interests in Vietnam and Korea, as well as Cuba and other South American countries. Even those countries have been motivated towards isolationism by an odd mix of leftism and nationalism. Also, look at the case of Korea, where nationalism has led to a degenerate military state.

I think there is plenty of evidence that nationalism has hindered the global cohesion of socialism, and harmed the states that have participated in it. In any case, I think that nationalism and internationalism are specifically incompatible, and international co-operation is necessary in order to form a united, global proletariat, but I figured you wouldn't accept that as an answer. :p

Many socialist movements in Europe were crushed by nationalists, but many socialist movements were also crushed by other factors. In Western Europe the stunning success of postwar mixed economies basically eliminated the appeal of socialism, and socialist parties either disappeared or became liberal capitalist parties.

Anyhow, you'll note that functionally most socialist governments end up becoming nationalistic, whether or not socialism is abandoned. Almost every town of note in the former Soviet Union has a monument to the Great Patriotic War, and the monuments invoke rodina, the Motherland. Not only is this because nationalism has a powerful emotional pull on people, but it's because the economic dynamics of socialism deemphasize international trade due to the need to use all available factors of production while emphasizing statism. Thus socialist states are in many respects a lot like mercantilist states were, only with a better standard of living for people on the bottom of society.

Nationalism and internationalism exist on a spectrum. Obviously the most extreme forms of nationalism are incompatible with extreme forms of internationalism, but there is no obstacle to moderately nationalist states cooperating with moderately internationalist states. After all, the whole point of internationalism is to solve global problems, and it's not like nationalist countries are unaffected by global problems. The international gold standard for instance was a highly effective global monetary system, and it was brought into being at a time when imperialism was at its absolute peak. Meanwhile the much more internationalist global order of today is unable to come up with a useful global monetary system at all, and most of the useful reform proposals are coming from Russia and China, countries not noted for their internationalism.
User avatar
By Red Star
#13545488
you'll note that functionally most socialist governments end up becoming nationalistic, whether or not socialism is abandoned


I would argue that many if not most are nationalistic from the very start. From personal research I know of the Bulgarain Communist Party's early campaigns which from the very inception of a socialist Bulgaria in 1944 carried nationalist tones, the tricolour, an almost immediate harking back to certain historical figures (such as a 13th century peasant king, Ivailo) etc. Martin Mevius popularised this kind of research with his work on Hungarian communists between 1941 and 1953 too, showing how "socialist patriotism" (which in reality was nationalism) was there from the very start - especially when the communists were in opposition in occuped Europe, presenting themselves as fighters for national freedom as well as socialist solidarity.

You have to also keep in mind the massive urbanisation and industrialisation that socialist states tend to undergo. The quick destruction of traditional kinship ties, notions of private property and village community means that the isolated new workers in the labour "suburbs" of the new big cities often needed a new sort of identity. Some commentators in the field try to go as far as to say that socialism's industrialisation inevitably lead to people "depositing" values they saw as positive in the concept of nationality or ethnicity - in other words, that the very way that socialism goes about its inception leads to nationalism. While I am not sure that these views are yet fully supported or substantiated, I do find it easier to state that socialism, in its need to form a community both capable of creating this new future and in the inievitable face of external opposition (unless we are talking about a sudden, pan-global victory), takes on a nationalist content rather than just form.

I think from what I gather about C_M's argument, however, he is talking about an "ideal" socialism. Otherwise, socialist states were quite often helped by nationalism in their internal structure and cohesion - the halcyon days of many states were exactly when their leaders were using the past to legitimise their present (as continuators of great ancient or medieval traditions - note Romania's policies for examples).
#14722504
Aspects of neo-liberalism which are also found in other ideologies, which ultimately lead to the global crises which face the world today, i.e., increasing debt and fallout from such, the effects of limits to growth, and environmental damage on a significant scale coupled with the effects of global warming.
User avatar
By Cartertonian
#14722992
Paradigm wrote:In terms of the offensiveness of their beliefs, I'd say extreme nationalism (far right). In terms of actual harm inflicted on the world, I'd say neoliberalism.

This...although I voted for neoliberalism as being the most dangerous
#14796392
Anarchy, because I have a value for strict authority to lay down the law of the land to prevent burning buildings, human rights violations, and madness. Not all people can be trusted to control themself around other people, and with no law enforcement how do we get those people away from the vulnerable? I'm a fascist, so it goes without saying I'd dislike anarchism. It's one of my dystopias, like a nightmare to me.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Only Zionists believe that bollocks and you lot ar[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]