Populism and Nazism

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Firstly if you don't like the thread, then **** off and don't waste your time. Secondly, wtf???

Handbags at forty paces, you scamp you.


I'll be your second. May I recommend the Gladstone Bag, with brick filler? VJ will never know what hit him.


Loved your graphs- like Euclidean sperms on L.S.D. .


Whaleboy

[Drogue]

In that case I'll be VJ's second, just for the sake of getting this over Shall we keep with tradition and meet at the bar at noon to discuss terms? I presume we're using the 1777 Code Duello rules?

[Whaleboy]

Thankyou MB, Drogue I shall run you through like a gentleman

[Drogue]

I'm the second, to run me through would be murder

[Whaleboy]

Perhaps, but it would certainly be fun! :P

[Whoha]

more pictures

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by Whoha
more pictures

[Whaleboy]

i'm bored

I'm not spamming my own thread, honest!

[Kidlicious]

Re: I'm back!

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Can it be said that the Nazis had the properties of Nationalism and Socialism? An opaque question at first, but consider the concepts at hand. Nationalism is the preference for ones own “group” of people over others. That group could be most obviously ones nation but this could extend to any distinction between one collection of people and others, for example race, religion or politic.

The Nazi's have some properties of socialism. That doesn't make them socialists. That's why they are referred to as 'National' Socialist, because national socialism is fundamentally different from socialism. Socialism is about equality, where Nationalism is about the exclusive group. Socialism does not distinguish between individuals on basis of race. It distiguishes people by class but aims to make everyone the same class, not seperate people by race or national status.

This emphasis on non-competitiveness is key because it assumes altruism (in other words that humans can act out of no self-interest, and thus absolutely for others) and leads to non-elitism.

It doesn't lead to non-elitism. Individuals within an organization do not compete, but that doesn't mean that they aren't ranked hierarchially. Look at the Nazis. They were elitists, but certainly not egoists.

If this were not the case then egoism would be fundamental, and so any pretence at a cooperative society would merely be a means to an end for the individual, and liable to change should the economic or social situation demand it.

This is Marxism. Marx assumed that people were egoistic, not altruistic.

This would necessarily render all socialist systems false, therefore the premise for socialism has to be altruism and a cooperative society. This has the obvious social consequence of ‘the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few’ and a form of utilitarianism evolving.

No. Why do you say that? I never quite understood this. Communism is about individual equaliy, not majority rule or utilitarianism.

It is this utilitarianism that seems the biggest factor to vary, since it determines tyranny by majority or minority. In a reciprocal fashion to the social consequence works the economic; the level of taxation, state-ownership and the extent of commerce. This means that socialism as I define it is the conceptual precursor to all socialist and communist systems – the line between the two is not distinct but imprecise and vague.

What do you mean here?

[Whaleboy]

The Nazi's have some properties of socialism. That doesn't make them socialists. That's why they are referred to as 'National' Socialist, because national socialism is fundamentally different from socialism.

But you're thinking of socialism in terms of straight up "isms" and discrete properties that can or cannot apply. I do not. Our reasoning behind that is completely different as I know from previous debates, and I'm really not well enough to have another debate about it, got enough work to do, so I've said my piece.

It doesn't lead to non-elitism. Individuals within an organization do not compete, but that doesn't mean that they aren't ranked hierarchially. Look at the Nazis. They were elitists, but certainly not egoists.

Then introduce someone with the associated impression, history or perception of elitism, what will happen?

This is Marxism. Marx assumed that people were egoistic, not altruistic.

No, he just didn't accept Benthams egoism.

No. Why do you say that? I never quite understood this. Communism is about individual equaliy, not majority rule or utilitarianism.

If you accept that altruism is the premise of socialism and communism as a basis upon which to construct a holistic philosophy (as opposed to an economic recourse), then if egoism is true then communism falls to the second condition, rendering the holisms false.

Whether or not egoism or altruism is true (I think we are aware of our respective positions on that, hence the futility of a further debate) is irrelevant because my argument does not depend on one nor the other.

What do you mean here?

State ownership, the degree to which the group utility (also open to discussion per system) outweights the individual and in what manifestations.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
But you're thinking of socialism in terms of straight up "isms" and discrete properties that can or cannot apply. I do not. Our reasoning behind that is completely different as I know from previous debates, and I'm really not well enough to have another debate about it, got enough work to do, so I've said my piece.

Well, you're talking about socialism that isn't socialism at all. It's no wonder that you see similarities between socialims and something that it's not.

Then introduce someone with the associated impression, history or perception of elitism, what will happen?

I don't know what you are getting at. You can have an elitist cooperative system, and you can have an egalitarian competitive system. You can't bind elitism to competition.

No, he just didn't accept Benthams egoism.

He never claimed that people would act altruistic. I challenge you to show otherwise. If you are thinking of his utopia, which is simply a theoretical extreme then he only assumed that people would not compete because resources were practically unlimited.

If you accept that altruism is the premise of socialism and communism as a basis upon which to construct a holistic philosophy (as opposed to an economic recourse), then if egoism is true then communism falls to the second condition, rendering the holisms false.

It's not the premise - not to Marxism anyway. You are thinking of some hippy socialism.

Whether or not egoism or altruism is true (I think we are aware of our respective positions on that, hence the futility of a further debate) is irrelevant because my argument does not depend on one nor the other.

It sure seems like it depends on it. Otherwise why would you go into all this?

[Whaleboy]

Well, you're talking about socialism that isn't socialism at all. It's no wonder that you see similarities between socialims and something that it's not

Ah I'm sorry my five years of debating, philosophy courses and history books must be mistaken... won't you please enlighten me?

I don't know what you are getting at. You can have an elitist cooperative system, and you can have an egalitarian competitive system. You can't bind elitism to competition.

That's not what I'm doing, I'm "binding" non-elitism to cooperation, that says nothing about competition and elitism.

He never claimed that people would act altruistic. I chalenge you to show otherwise. If you are thinking of his utopia, which is simply a theoretical extreme than he only assumed that people would not compete because resources were practically unlimited.

No sorry my bad, I know what mean, I was thinking of the Manifesto but just flicked through my stuff on Kapital. I think he would agree with me about egoism in essence, but altruism existing as a human property like "morality" in the sense that he would use that concept, still underpins his argument. Regardless of Marx himself, it remains a premise of socialism for obvious reasons.

It's not the premise - not to Marxism anyway. You are thinking of some hippy socialism.

So how can a holistic socialism work on the basis of egoism? Again enlighten me. Oppose your argument to socialism/communism by economic prudency, which is hardly worth a revolution now.

It sure seems like it depends on it. Otherwise why would you go into all this?

You have, I haven't. I devoted about a half dozen lines of text to the matter.

I use the distinction to demonstrate that socialism et al is not merely a holism but a more transcendant concept... that holds regardless of altruism vs. egoism.

[Whaleboy]

Neverless I doubt we're going to agree on the matter, you think that the likes of "left" and "right" holds exclusively for political holisms, regardless of social distinctions from economy, so we're never going to see eye to eye on this issue.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Ah I'm sorry my five years of debating, philosophy courses and history books must be mistaken... won't you please enlighten me?

I've said this before. Your error is assuming that people see the world the way that you see it, and that they simply come to the wrong conclussions. So you argue what you think people really mean without listening to them. If you want to understand politics and the ideas that other political groups have that are opposed to your own you are going to have to start listening to people and understanding how they see the world differently than you do.

That's not what I'm doing, I'm "binding" non-elitism to cooperation, that says nothing about competition and elitism.

You can't bind those two together either. People can cooperate in an elitist sysem just like they can compete in an non-elitest system. They can compete together to achieve higher goals of the group, and they can cooperate to achieve their own personal goals.

No sorry my bad, I know what mean, I was thinking of the Manifesto but just flicked through my stuff on Kapital. I think he would agree with me about egoism in essence, but altruism existing as a human property like "morality" in the sense that he would use that concept, still underpins his argument. Regardless of Marx himself, it remains a premise of socialism for obvious reasons.

He doesn't claim that acting in your self-interest is immoral, only that doing so in a way that exploits people is.

So how can a holistic socialism work on the basis of egoism? Again enlighten me. Oppose your argument to socialism/communism by economic prudency, which is hardly worth a revolution now.

I already did. People cooperate with each other more often for their own self-interest than for the interest of society. People don't revolt to create a communist society because they believe that society is more worthy than they individual like national socialists believe that the nation is more important than the individual. They revolt because they believe that communism is better for the individual than they current system. They work within the new communist system not for their society, but for their own benefit.

[Whaleboy]

I've said this before. Your error is assuming that people see the world the way that you see it, and that they simply come to the wrong conclussions. So you argue what you think people really mean without listening to them. If you want to understand politics and the ideas that other political groups have that are opposed to your own you are going to have to start listening to people and understanding how they see the world differently than you do.

WTF? Mine was a retort to your implication that I don't know what I'm on about. You have shown no evidence to support your assertions, only restated them. Where you do elaborate (i.e. "socialism is about equality" with regards to elitism and anti-elitism) you have completely missed the point .

You can't bind those two together either. People can cooperate in an elitist sysem just like they can compete in an non-elitest system. They can compete together to achieve higher goals of the group, and they can cooperate to achieve their own personal goals.

Again you are applying your own discrete holistic thought to a situation where that is not applicable. Cooperation and competition are not binary conditions, in the most capitalist societies, cooperation is essential, in the most cooperative societies, competition exists as an impetus between groups ('within the group' is of course Marx's altruism).

He doesn't claim that acting in your self-interest is immoral, only that doing so in a way that exploits people is.

I said it was similar to his use of "morality", not synonymous with it . But a discussion of Marxist morality is of course irrelevant to this debate.

I already did. People cooperate with each other more often for their own self-interest than for the interest of society. People don't revolt to create a communist society because they believe that society is more worthy than they individual like national socialists believe that the nation is more important than the individual. They revolt because they believe that communism is better for the individual than they current system. They work within the new communist system not for their society, but for their own benefit.

None of which answers my question. I'm asking you to show that socialism is a discrete condition that cannot be applied continuously to, say, Nazism or other NS manifestations. I have provided an argument for that proposition, you must now provide a counter or an antithesis, and reason accordingly, as opposed to stating axioms and irrelevancies.

As a side note, it is interesting that you seem to support a more individualistic egoism, though you need again to show that this leads necessarily to a specific communist/socialist system(s) and show a distinction between the two... instead of merely concluding with the economic prudency in hard times of supporting each other and cooperating (still to the individual's end I think you will agree).