The Essence of the Left

[brennan]

Socialism is the acceptance that humans are a social organism that benefit the most from cooperation and looking after each other, rather than through competition (i.e. capitalism). The chief historic expressions of that are redistribution via taxation in all the major economies, which has been a run away success; and state ownership via totalitarian forms of Marxism - which have failed.

The term "socialism" was created by Henri de Saint-Simon, one of the founders of what would later be labelled "utopian socialism". The term "socialism" was created to contrast against the liberal doctrine of "individualism", which stressed that people act or should act as if they are in isolation from one another.[25] The original socialists condemned liberal individualism as failing to address social concerns of poverty, social oppression, and gross inequality of wealth.[25] They viewed liberal individualism as degenerating society into supporting selfish egoism that harmed community life through promoting a society based on competition.[25] They presented socialism as an alternative to liberal individualism, that advocated a society based on cooperation.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Alright, let's not quibble over terms. So there is some moderate state-socialism.
Funnily enough, that also means that the mere existence of private property is socialism, but whatever.

But our economies are still decidedly unsocialistic and that is what I was referring to. And a movement for that to change is pretty dead nowadays.

 

[Cutlass]

Again, I think you're seriously underestimating how important and transformative an experience the war was in the lives of many young men. Even fascism itself was dramatically changed, acquiring a militarist dimension which had been marginal before 1914 but now became absolutely central. For a lot of the early fascists, fascism was a way to keep the war going indefinitely, in that it allowed them to keep playing soldier without or without a war. These were people who invested their entire identity in military service, not just in the enthusiasm of youth, but amid trenches and shellfire, and that's not the sort of thing that people can just put on and take off as it suits them. Americans are very fond of the trope of the soldier who takes the war home with them: well, fascism is what happened when tens of thousands took it home with them and began inflicting it on everybody else.

I'm not disputing that the War was a transformative experience. But rather that the shape of that transformation wasn't predetermined. And that the shape it took ultimately emerged, in each group, based based on the leaders and groupthink that emerged there.There is a self-reinforcing effect of getting a bunch of disgruntled people together and having them rant and grip at one another. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think that having the fascists emerge on top was inevitable, but rather happened because of a great many contingent events in its evolution.

 

[Tahuti]

2) Hopes that people will ignore the NHS, Medicare, Medicaid, social security systems, unions, minimum wage legislation, universal education and so on that shows anyone who looks that socialism is right here with us and isn't going anywhere.

I would distinguish between socialism (with a small s, emphasising balancing individualism with concerns for the community and support for certain welfarist policies, a socialism I would support) between Socialism (with a big S, a general ideology emphasising a more generalised group mentality that may or may not be egalitarian, and supporting the former to an fanatical degree), as in Marxist Socialism, Fabian Socialism and National Socialism.

Clemens von Metternich supported something he called 'socialism' as a counterbalance to unrestrained capitalism. I see nothing bad in that.

 

[Flying Pig]

I'm not disputing that the War was a transformative experience. But rather that the shape of that transformation wasn't predetermined. And that the shape it took ultimately emerged, in each group, based based on the leaders and groupthink that emerged there.There is a self-reinforcing effect of getting a bunch of disgruntled people together and having them rant and grip at one another. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think that having the fascists emerge on top was inevitable, but rather happened because of a great many contingent events in its evolution.

I'd go further and say it's actually more down to the people being transformed, even after the fact. Most people's wars would have been remarkably boring: you didn't spend a majority of the time at the front by any means, and large areas of the 'combat zone' were deliberately kept low-intensity by those in them - there's a few good articles on the subject, here's one. What I'm getting at is that you could well have come back from Flanders in 1915 having seen much less of the 'sharp end' than a soldier coming back from Afghanistan in 2006. What I suspect happened was that people encountered fascism after the war, and their memories emphasised the parts which fitted with their new identity - constructed exactly like TF said, as a young man who had spent years fighting bitter enemies in a struggle for national greatness, but constructed retroactively. You selectively forget that the 'enemy' let you recover your wounded and draw your rations without hindrance, or stood visible as their gunners fired at you then apologised for 'that damned Prussian artillery'. In other words, I think the key factor in explaining the rise of fascism is the situation for veterans after the war, not the situation in the trenches themselves.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I'm not disputing that the War was a transformative experience. But rather that the shape of that transformation wasn't predetermined. And that the shape it took ultimately emerged, in each group, based based on the leaders and groupthink that emerged there.There is a self-reinforcing effect of getting a bunch of disgruntled people together and having them rant and grip at one another. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think that having the fascists emerge on top was inevitable, but rather happened because of a great many contingent events in its evolution.

True. There were at least three attempts at socialist revolution in Germany during and after WW I. It was these failures, plus the failures of the right socialists, that led to fawcism. But fascism is a tactic of capitalism... a result of social forces on motion. If Hitler hadn't come along, history would have created one. In that respect, fascists don't become leaders, leaders become fascist.

Russia's revolution was during the war. Pre-fascism.

 

[Tahuti]

True. There were at least three attempts at socialist revolution in Germany during and after WW I. It was these failures, plus the failures of the right socialists, that led to fawcism. But fascism is a tactic of capitalism... a result of social forces on motion. If Hitler hadn't come along, history would have created one. In that respect, fascists don't become leaders, leaders become fascist.

Russia's revolution was during the war. Pre-fascism.

Hitler was one of a kind. Everything came together at the right moment and he was at the centre of it. If he died prematurely, the Nazi movement may have lost its momentum and never gained the power it did. Hitler in many aspects authored Nazism, by combining Völkisch ideologies of fringe Aryanist groups with Socialism, and then further modifying both to appeal to those traditionally supportive of Capitalism.

 

[brennan]

But our economies are still decidedly unsocialistic and that is what I was referring to. And a movement for that to change is pretty dead nowadays.

Well i'd disagree to the first statement outright. Socialism is in action whenever a worker gets taxed to help someone else, this is an ever present fact to almost every working individual and is a key battleground in UK politics - was also mentioned by Mitt Romney to disastrous effect a few years back.

Socialism isn't gone it's just been very effectively propagandised against and dropped off the radar - unless you look for it, in which case you should quickly notice that redistribution and egalitarianism it is still an intrinsic part of our economies (as mentioned) - but that doesn't mean it is gone forever, as the capitalist class continues to use their wealth to leverage more from the modern working class there will be a backlash - e.g. economic problems in the USA have led to a major increase in union membership.

I would distinguish between socialism...

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Hitler was one of a kind. Everything came together at the right moment and he was at the centre of it. If he died prematurely, the Nazi movement may have lost its momentum and never gained the power it did. Hitler in many aspects authored Nazism, by combining Völkisch ideologies of fringe Aryanist groups with Socialism, and then further modifying both to appeal to those traditionally supportive of Capitalism.

Are you forgetting that he did this all with the blessing of the German industrial and financial bourgeoisie? They needed this, and would have created it. They were the PTB.

Mislocated ideology aside, Nazism was right Hegelianisn... inclusive of the subjective idealistic notion of the German State. Its strength lay in being able to opportunistically deliver in the short term.

Whereas, the Bolsheviks took a little longer than the lucky ones!

 

[Tahuti]

Are you forgetting that he did this all with the blessing of the German industrial and financial bourgeoisie?

I'm not denying this. Hitler significantly modified traditional Socialism as well as German nationalism to become more compatible with his Völkisch views as well to receive the blessing from traditionally Capitalist constituents.

 

[IncessantMace]

If he hadn't gotten the big conglomerates such as Krupps on his side there was no way they would have supported anything he did so he needed to kiss up to them, the Wehrmacht needed guns from someone.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Considering that the Nazis had no fear into breaking several thousand mirrors to get some sweet, sweet cash, I don't think some stupid industrialists would get in their way.

 

[IncessantMace]

Ah, but the industrialists had the money, they would not have had issues finding a different group to crush their opponents, money talks after all.

Really the big reason the industrialists funded him was because of how anti-communist he was. They were terrified of the German communists taking power and that would have meant a very bad day for those corporate types.

Regardless, we can all agree Hitler was anything but on the left side of the political spectrum.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Did they know he was planning a war, however? Had they've known, they would have tried to prevent that. Or, at least, when the war breaks out, take all the sweet profits and move to a private tropical island. Preferably in South America.

 

[IncessantMace]

Well, if they had any inkling of what was written in Mein Kampf (which is apparently a terribly written book in any case) they would have been able to find out he wanted war. They, along with the Franz von Papen (last Chancellor of the Weimar republic) really just wanted to use him to stamp out the radical left then they figured they could get rid of him.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Sadly, everyone misjudged Hitler for a great demagogue who once becomes chancellor, will fail stupidly, and the glorious worker's revolution/restoration of the German monarchy will one day happen.

 

[IncessantMace]

He'd probably shudder at what Germany has become, 3 million Turks is something he would not want there, plus the fact the Green party exists and is somewhat influential would probably give him an aneurysm.

 

[gay_Aleks]

He would have gloated however at the timely end of the Soviet Union, I guess.

 

[IncessantMace]

If ever there was a complete twisting of what the left stands for, the USSR is probably the most prominent example.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Well, it could be argued that the left was never well-defined. Something you could also say for the right. This thread and the last pages are living proof of that.