Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
BD – ‘Where I teach there is an expectation that all sources are authoritatively referenced.’
Who has the ‘authority’ to define Fascism? Perhaps Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini? Any glance at what they wrote will tell you that their ‘ideology’ was far from coherent. In terms of those who followed them, which is far more important, it is unlikely that their values and principles were ‘defined’ in any logical sense. Fascism was based on faith without the need to recourse to rational thought – that is why it became so strong.
ZJW – You don’t have to agree with a book to review it. Your attitude doesn’t really help with starting dialogue with those who disagree with us – just sounds like sectarianism.
CIT – ‘I am resting my case: There is no fascism, there are no fascists, and socialism is not an ideology, and it is not a doctrine either, even though Engels used the expression: doctrine in a different context. Later on, he called socialism/communism a movement’
Well that’s that then. The high Priest has spoken. As usual his more didactic and preachy statements make his socialism sound more like a religion rather than an evolving corpus of ideas.
TM -‘Socialism is not an ideology, it is social awareness.’
One doesn’t necessarily exclude the other. One of the main reasons I try not to use the terms ‘Marxist’ or Marxism’ is because to do so implies that it was a separate ideology from Socialism. As I say, when we use the term ‘ideology’ we refer to the prejudice and class conditioning of other ideologies. Being aware of these factors (thanks in no small measure to Marx) helps us to transform socialism into more of a ‘social science’ than just another ideology. Nevertheless we can trace the history and development of socialism from its utopian (ideological) roots into the coherent synthesis of history, economics and politics that we have today.” It is no defense to say that philosophers like journalists, artists, novelists are not responsible for at least some of the consequences of their work. “
Exactly – I’m not saying writers/artists are always wholly responsible for the misuse or misunderstanding of their work but some are responsible, like those I mention, for the consequences of their work. There’s a wonderfully funny and insightful film called ‘Stranger than Fiction’ starring Will Ferrell which explores this relationship. Sometimes when I acquire strange interpretations of my writing I have the urge to defend my original intentions but once published it doesn’t belong to just me. I have to accept that it wasn’t good enough to communicate my meaning and leave it as it stands (or falls). We all have to take responsibility for some of the consequences of our work.
You dispute that you are motivated by ideology but isn’t socialism an ideology? I think Marx makes the distinction that ours is a conscious ideology in contrast to the unconscious prejudices and class conditioning of reactionary philosophers.TM – ‘Just following your logic, that philosophers must bear responsibility for things done in their name. If Nietzsche must take responsibility for Hitler, then Marx must for Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot.
You no doubt judge Nietzsche on a non-existent link, which is just the same. In fact, for you, it seems the non-existent link is your definition of the man, just as anti-Marxists do with Marx.I repeat where is there any evidence that Marx would have supported Mao, Stalin or Pol Pot? You’re talking nonsense. Nietzsche himself dismissed the notion that philosophers were ‘objective seekers of truth’. In Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche says:’A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength – life itself is the will to power’.
Where did I ever say: ‘that philosophers must bear responsibility for things done in their name’? Sometimes even philosophers are unambiguous. We’re all driven by ideological motives, even your beloved philosophers, the trick is to be aware of them and try to contain them.TM -‘Then Marx must bear responsibility for Bolshevism, Mao and Pol Pot.’
A very strange statement. Where would you find anything that remotely supports or justifies the crimes of these monsters in the writings of Marx!? I note that you do not seek to exonerate the other philosophers I mention. Another thing to bear in mind is that many philosophers were very poor writers and so it is not surprising that they are misinterpreted – about the only thing I will concede to Nietzsche is his talent for writing.‘The originals shouldn’t be blamed; the problem is with those who misuse their ideas. Thinkers create ideas, ideologues turn them into dogma.’
Nietzsche > Superman > Strength of the will > Nazism
Hobbes > Human Nature > Bourgeois ideology
Sartre > Authenticity/Individuality > Alienation/false consciousness
Indeed I’m inclined to agree with Marx that all philosophy is driven by ideology. It is no defense to say that philosophers like journalists, artists, novelists are not responsible for at least some of the consequences of their work. That historically obscure Rabbi of 2000 years ago may have been horrified by the use of his preaching in justifying the Puritan violence during the English Revolution but the fact is that if you believe in an unchanging supernatural hierarchy and preach it to others then historically you must take responsibility for the inevitable consequences.CIT: ‘it would be difficult to establish a personal dictatorship’ – It wasn’t easy for Hitler either but he did it and Trump and Farage are having a damn good attempt at it. I have never been convinced that Fascism is confined to the historical context when it was conceived- if that were so why isn’t Marxian Socialism confined to the late 19th century?
As for TM’s assertion that philosophers are not susceptible to ideology would seem to be ridiculous as many of them actually instigated many ideologies (whether intentionally or not) including Plato, Nietzsche, Sartre, John Stuart Mill etc., etc. Indeed Marx’s analysis of any given philosophy usually started with the cultural and class background of the philosopher concerned.“There is no fascism, and there are no fascists; therefore, the struggle against fascism is only an illusion, as well as the struggle against communism is also an illusion, because it has never existed”
That’s one of the most shameful things I’ve ever seen posted on this forum. Talk about burying your head in the sand and hoping it will all go away. And as for the struggle against ‘communism’ (state capitalist Bolshevism) has never existed? This Party has opposed it and always will.
Perhaps Putin was rather shocked at the blustering ego-maniacal fool he was speaking with and decided he had nothing to fear from the US? I believe he called him a ‘paper tiger’.
TM – I’m well aware of the history you describe but to be a ‘nationalist’ you have to have a nation with which to identify so the history of nation states is not a ‘different thing’. When you speak of ‘popular sentiment’ this is just another form of tribalism which is rooted in the psychological need for the weak to identify with the strong and, as you say, it can take many forms like religion, secret societies, sports teams, cultural and ethnic values or just plain racism.
I quite like this definition as it implies that the ideology was a spin-off of technological advances – very Marxian:
‘The origins and early history of nation-states are disputed. A major theoretical question is: “Which came first, the nation or the nation-state?” Scholars such as Steven Weber, David Woodward, Michel Foucault and Jeremy Black[10][11][12] have advanced the hypothesis that the nation-state did not arise out of political ingenuity or an unknown undetermined source, nor was it a political invention; rather, it is an inadvertent by-product of 15th-century intellectual discoveries in political economy, capitalism, mercantilism, political geography, and geography[13][14] combined with cartography[15][16] and advances in map-making technologies.[17][18] It was with these intellectual discoveries and technological advances that the nation-state arose.’I’ve always thought of nationalism as as a form of tribalism that the princes (and later Bourgeoisie) used to initially split from the Holy Roman Empire and the Pope in the name of Protestantism during the Reformation?
