Essential Political Reading

[Danish]

Bush said yesterday at the UN GA:

"Democracy cannot be imposed."

He is wrong. He is very wrong. Democracy can, and must be imposed.

If democracy is imposed, it isn't really democracy.

[GurS]

I reckon "Walden" by Thorreau should be on there. I've always understood it to be pretty important to anarchism.

[Smokey D]

Give me a better definition, then.

Peasants, although they were not technically "owned" like capital, lived on and worked the land of their masters with no opportunity for betterment. The only difference between that and slavery was that peasants were free to leave if they wanted. I call it ownership, even if they weren't bought: their land was and they were inextricably tied to their land.

An economic system where political power is derived from the the ownership of land which is divided into plots and leased to peasants for a payment of dues to the feudal lord. In return, the lord is under a 'noble obligation' to protect certain 'ancient (but extremely limited) rights' possessed by the peasantry. Overwhelming agraian, feudalism does not have significant interests in urban centres, and in many ways cities were independent 'islands' outside of feudal control. Politcally, a feudal system is quite fragmented -- as ownership of land is the required ingredient for political power, families with large territorial holdings could operate largely independent of the central government. However, feudalism also supposes the origin of title as deriving from Crown, and therefore the political state is headed by a monarch. It is based on a series of arrangements between landowners of different levels of power and influence -- vassals and lords -- with each lower tier owing their own feudal dues (collected from the peasants working noble estates) to their ruling lord. In times of war, the lords could prevail upon their vassals to supply troops for the cause. The monarch represents the pinnacle of this vassalage system -- he is the supreme feudal lord. Feudalism also is primarily concerned with dynastic arrangements; a single national consciousness did not really emerge in Europe until after the French Revolution. The British Isles, separated by a stretch sea, was slightly different in this regard, national identity emerging somewhat earlier.


Peasants, although they were not technically "owned" like capital, lived on and worked the land of their masters with no opportunity for betterment. The only difference between that and slavery was that peasants were free to leave if they wanted. I call it ownership, even if they weren't bought: their land was and they were inextricably tied to their land.

Peasants had a far greater set of rights than was possessed by slaves or serfs.

[Reaganista]

Bush said yesterday at the UN GA:

"Democracy cannot be imposed."

He is wrong. He is very wrong. Democracy can, and must be imposed.
he really said that?

If democracy is imposed, it isn't really democracy.
um yeah it is
all democracies impose on people

[Iskandar]

An economic system ...
I really don't see how "peasants working land owned by masters" fails as a definition of the feudal mode of production; nor do I see a difference between serfs and peasants. Some sources seem to use the terms interchangably. What's the difference?
most of them are
the rest are elected by the minority
Depends if the majority were allowed to vote. A minority government in Canada is still democratic; but if a government were elected because only 40% of voters were allowed to vote, that isn't democratic.

[Smokey D]

I really don't see how "peasants working land owned by masters" fails as a definition of the feudal mode of production; nor do I see a difference between serfs and peasants. Some sources seem to use the terms interchangably. What's the difference?

Peasants working land owned by feudal lords is essentially what feudalism is, but it entails a strict hierarchy and a system of rights you didn't acknowledge. And besides, you said the peasants were owned by their lords, not that they worked on land owned by landlords.

And serfdom differs from peasant labour in that whereas peasants have limited rights granted by nobless oblige, serfs are completely subject to aristocratic control. They have absolutely no legal rights, and while not technically property of their lord, the distinction is extremely small. They are bound to the estate on which they work, and can only leave or even marry by the permission of their lord. Dues tended to be much harsher against serfs than peasants, and their was no legal recourse available to them for seigniorial abuses. Essentially, it was entrenched Old World slavery.

[Reaganista]

Depends if the majority were allowed to vote. A minority government in Canada is still democratic; but if a government were elected because only 40% of voters were allowed to vote, that isn't democratic.
what are you talking about
in the 2004 house of representatives election 46.5% of votes went to the dems they got 202 seats

[Danish]

um yeah it is
all democracies impose on people

Not by another sovereign state.

[Reaganista]

what's the difference

[Iskandar]

Peasants working land owned by feudal lords is essentially what feudalism is, but it entails a strict hierarchy and a system of rights you didn't acknowledge. And besides, you said the peasants were owned by their lords, not that they worked on land owned by landlords.
Details like rights and hierarchy are important from a historical perspective, but not so much from an economic perspective.

I blame myself for not choosing my words more carefully when I stated peasants were owned by their lords. Of course this is incorrect.

QUOTE=Smokey D]And serfdom differs from peasant labour in that ...[/QUOTE]
Thank you for your explanation.
They have absolutely no legal rights, and while not technically property of their lord, the distinction is extremely small. They are bound to the estate on which they work, and can only leave or even marry by the permission of their lord. Dues tended to be much harsher against serfs than peasants, and their was no legal recourse available to them for seigniorial abuses. Essentially, it was entrenched Old World slavery.
This is what I meant when I said "owned." Let me rephrase it to "serfs were owned by their masters in all but name, due to their lack of freedom of mobility, rights, etc."

There is no need for argument. We are in agreement; it's merely that I worded my first post rather poorly. Now, onto lighter business:
what are you talking about
in the 2004 house of representatives election 46.5% of votes went to the dems they got 202 seats
Uh, I said allowed to vote, not "did vote." Everybody in such an election as you described is permitted to vote. Therefore, a minority election is still democratic.

[Reaganista]

yeah that's my conclusion
you were the one saying minorities should never have power

[Smokey D]

Details like rights and hierarchy are important from a historical perspective, but not so much from an economic perspective.

Of course they are. They impact hugely on historical progression and economic circumstances-- most significantly the emergence of an urban capital ownership and the role of cities as centres of economic growth.


This is what I meant when I said "owned." Let me rephrase it to "serfs were owned by their masters in all but name, due to their lack of freedom of mobility, rights, etc."


Serfdom is not feudalism.

In serfdom, the serf is bound to the estate they were born on. In feudalism, the peasant rents land from a landlord, uses it to grow crops with which to feed his family, go to market (when possible) and pay the rent. The tennency could end, and the peasant could leave (which became particuarly important in the growth of cities free from aristocratic control).

[Iskandar]

yeah that's my conclusion
you were the one saying minorities should never have power
You were the one misconstruing my argument, then.

What I was arguing is that a government elected when the majority is not allowed to vote is not democratic. If the majority votes and a minority passes, for whatever reasons, that's still democratic. If only a minority is allowed to vote, that is not democratic. It's clear and simple. If you want to continue miscontruing my arguments and quoting me out of context because you have nothing better to do, that's not my problem.

[Reaganista]

You were the one misconstruing my argument, then.

no you were saying completely ridiculous things which you've now changed to be something different

[Iskandar]

no you were saying completely ridiculous things which you've now changed to be something different
That's a good thing, then. I've clarified my argument for your sake.

[Reaganista]

well you've changed the subject to something completely different
If the majority votes and a minority passes, for whatever reasons, that's still democratic
but this doesn't make sense
in order for a minority to win power in elections the system has to be designed in a way that gives them power
like dividing the country into districts or giving proportional representation or whatever

[Iskandar]

but this doesn't make sense
in order for a minority to win power in elections the system has to be designed in a way that gives them power
like dividing the country into districts or giving proportional representation or whatever
A minority could easily win power in a FPTP system. In Canada, which has a FPTP system with districts and several parties, it's quite feasible.

I'm not quite sure if this could occur in America. What if there were three major parties in an American federal election?

[Reaganista]

a plurality isn't really a minority
or at least I didn't mean for it to be
let's not debate the dictionary

I'm not quite sure if this could occur in America. What if there were three major parties in an American federal election?
that happens a lot
bush's win in 04 was the first time since his dad won in 88 that we had a president get more than half the vote

[Iskandar]

that happens a lot
bush's win in 04 was the first time since his dad won in 88 that we had a president get more than half the vote
I see.

Why must we hate each other?

[Reaganista]

I dunno I think it's more fun this way

[Iskandar]

I dunno I think it's more fun this way
It's our forum's personal Cold War.

[Reaganista]

I didn't know we were having a cold war
I should get some satellites
both kinds

[Iskandar]

I didn't know we were having a cold war
I should get some satellites
both kinds
It's not called Sputnik music forums for no reason. MX himself is a member of our glorious sotsialistich brotherhood.

[Volumnius Flush]

um yeah it is
all democracies impose on people

I'm feeling a little imposed upon right now.

[coheneran]

All The Shah's Men

Has anybody read it? I found a summary on wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_Shah's_Men

But I wanna hear more. Sounds really good.

[djs]

Are there any books that give a basic description of the major political (both social and economic) theories? Whenever I try to look something up on Wikipedia, I end up at some theory that I can't tell whether it's "important" or not.

I don't really like basing my political views off that Political Compass survey :rolleyes:

[Danish]

Are there any books that give a basic description of the major political (both social and economic) theories? Whenever I try to look something up on Wikipedia, I end up at some theory that I can't tell whether it's "important" or not.

I don't really like basing my political views off that Political Compass survey :rolleyes:

There is a good first-year political science textbook called "Ideas and Ideologies" that you should check out. For social theory, I recommend a first-year sociology textbook.

[Reaganista]

homo sacer by aguben

(omg tway is still alive?!)

[pedro durruti]

I've never read anything by Noam Chomsky, Danish or anyone want to reocommend me an "introductory" reading?

[Africa]

Havn't read anything either, but I keep hearing about Hegemony or Survival.

[Danish]

The two most important works by Chomsky, in my opinion, are Manufacturing Consent and Hegemony or Survival.

[StreetlightRock]

Yea, start off with those two. Chomsky writes so dryly though =/

[Danish]

Yea, start off with those two. Chomsky writes so dryly though =/

Yea, somewhat sarcastic, too. I like it, though.

[Reaganista]

foucault > chumpsky

> >

[Danish]

foucault > chumpsky

> >

Uggh no way!

[Reaganista]

like five or six ways actually

[Yield]

I got Ecce Homo and Utopia the other day, and I want to look for What is Property. I'm reading Ecce Homo right now.

[Against Miik!]

So maybe i'm just retarded, but I just got done reading Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick, and I don't think I saw it on the list. I was under the impression that it was basically a libertarian bible.

[pedro durruti]

Hey, I read a selection of The Spirit in my sociology class last semester, and it didn't seem very anti-marxist. Maybe it was just the section I was reading, but it just seemed like an explanation of capitalism's development amongst the Protestant movement, and its effects in the modern world. What's the rest of it like?

[coheneran]

V For Vendetta, the comic book. It comes in ten PDF files, all in all 111mb.

Parts 1-5: http://rapidshare.com/files/16936731/V_For_Vendetta__1-5.zip.html
Parts 6-10: http://rapidshare.com/files/16937976/V_For_Vendetta__6-10.zip.html

I'm reading it right now and taking excerpts that I find interesting. I'll add that file later, when it's finished, if it's finished.

[Petros]

Could anyone recommend some books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? The history of modern israel?

[Iskandar]

Could anyone recommend some books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? The history of modern israel?
Right now I'm reading From Beirut to Jerusalem by Thomas Friedman, among others.

[Petros]

Thanks. If you or anyone can recommend others, it would be good.

[coheneran]

Drinking The Sea Of Gaza by Amira Hass (who's an international award-winning Israeli journalist, a real great lady). David Grossman's great book, The Yellow Wind, is really famous. I think he was one of the first Israeli journalists to go into the West Bank, way back in the 60s or 70s. I heard a story where a Palestinian child asked Grossman where he was from, and Grossman replied, "From Israel." The child said, "You can't be Israeli, Israelis don't have eyes and ears." When Grossman asked him why he thought that, the child explained that "When you try to look a soldier in the eye, he kicks you down. When you try to speak to a soldier, he shouts you down." Grossman was in Palestine at a time when the only time Israelis would encounter Palestinians would be as soldiers, and as a soldier you tend to lose your humanity.

[Danish]

Could anyone recommend some books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? The history of modern israel?

Noam Chomsky - The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians

[pedro durruti]

Hehe.. you love Noam... but I finished Hegemony, and now I'm reading Manufacturing Consent. So basically I do too :)

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

Just looking at the original list - I would remove Nietzsche's Will To Power as it was actually compiled by his sister after his death from various of his unfinished notebooks, and as such has been said to reflect her strong antisemiticism rather than Nietzsche's ideas. In its place I would recommend Beyond Good And Evil as it covers most of the key ideas in his philosophy and is written in a typical ambiguous Nietzschean style.

[peeted]

Why is Beyond Good and Evil in the fascism section? I can only assume that whoever put it there has not fully understood the book. Realy Nietzsche doesnt fit into any of those catagorys since he was "anti political".

Also shouldnt there mabie be something by Jean Baudrillard in the postmodernism section?

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

Noam Chomsky - The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians

Let's guess whose side he's on. I thought that was more of an opinion or comment -type book based around the history of the conflict. An interesting short TV called the Power of Nightmares, shown on BBC2 (maybe on their website www.bbc.co.uk) charted the parallel rise of neo-conservatism and islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East, and as such had a lot of history of the area in it, including how Iraq was created (maybe of interest especially nowadays). The programme was obviously arguing a certain point, but the history seemed quite unbiased (the bias was mostly left to the political commentary, if there was any).

I would definitely advise checking it out anyway if you can track it down, there are only 3 programmes I think. There is another series by the same man, called Whatever Happened to Our Dreams of Freedom, also on BBC2, concluding last week, which is also very interesting and a good way of getting interested in and thinking about issues such as liberty.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

also why is Beyond Good and Evil in the fascism section? I can only assume that whoever put it there has not fully understood the book.

Definitely. Or not read it, as the first poster says he hasn't read them all. I mean, with Nietzsche there are so many interpretations (some said "it is as if everyone has their own Nietzsche) but it is definitely not a book about fascism. The Nazis selectively used bits of Nietzsche's work (esp. from his sister's editing to make it sound anti-semitic in Will To Power) to back up their own arguments, not the other way around as far as I can see.
e.g. they refer to something like the "golden beast" or something to back up their aryan superiority, whereas in context it more obviously refers to the lion as the king of animals. Of course, you can interpret how you will, but the book is certainly not a manifesto of fascism even if certain ideas from it influenced the fascist movement.

[croniun]

Definitely. Or not read it, as the first poster says he hasn't read them all. I mean, with Nietzsche there are so many interpretations (some said "it is as if everyone has their own Nietzsche) but it is definitely not a book about fascism. The Nazis selectively used bits of Nietzsche's work (esp. from his sister's editing to make it sound anti-semitic in Will To Power) to back up their own arguments, not the other way around as far as I can see.
e.g. they refer to something like the "golden beast" or something to back up their aryan superiority, whereas in context it more obviously refers to the lion as the king of animals. Of course, you can interpret how you will, but the book is certainly not a manifesto of fascism even if certain ideas from it influenced the fascist movement.

Yea I don't think I'd call it a fascist book but at the same time, he was extremely critical of democracy, equality, and utilitarianism.

Kind of hard to ignore section 9. "What is Noble."

"Every enhancement of the type "man" has so far been the work of an aristocratic society--and it will be so again and again--a society that believes in the long ladder of an order of rank and differences in value between man and man, and that needs slavery in some sense or the other."

"The essential characteristic of a good and healthy aristocracy, however, is that it experiences itself not as a function (whether of the monarchy or the commonwealth) but as their meaning and highest justification--that it therefore accepts with a good conscience the sacrifice of untold human beings who, for its sake, must be reduced and lowered to incomplete human beings, to slaves, to instruments. Their fundamental faith simply has to be that society must not exist for society's sake but only as the foundation and scaffolding on which a choice type of being is able to raise itself to its higher task and to a higher state of being."

"Refraining mutually from injury, violence, and exploitation and placing one's will on a par with that of someone else...as soon as this principle is extended, and possibly even accepted as the fundamental principle of society, it immediately proves to be what it really is--a will to the denial of life, a principle of disintegration and decay."

"Life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of what is alien and weaker; suppression, hardness, imposition of one's own forms, incorporation and at least, at its mildest, exploitation--but why should one always use those words in which a slanderous intent has been imprinted for ages?"

"The noble human being separates from himself those in whom the opposite of such exalted, proud states finds expression: he despises them."

"It is part of the fundamental faith of all aristocrats that the common people lie. 'We truthful ones'--thus the nobility of ancient Greek referred to itself."

"A species comes to be, a type becomes fixed and strong, through the long fight with essentially constant unfavorable conditions...Now look for once at an aristocratic commonwealth--say, an ancient Greek polis, or Venice--as an arrangement, whether voluntary or involuntary, for breeding: human beings are together there who are dependent on themselves and want their species to prevail, most often because they have to prevail or run the terrible risk of being exterminated. Here that boon, that excess, and that protection which favor variations are lacking; the species needs itself as a species, as something that can prevail and make itself durable by virtue of its very hardness, uniformity, and simplicity of form, in a constant fight with its neighbors or with the oppressed who are rebellious or threaten rebellion. Manifold experience teaches them to which qualities above all they owe the fact that, despite all gods ad men, they are still there, that they always triumphed: these qualities they call virtues, these virtues alone they cultivate. They do this with hardness, indeed they want hardness; every aristocratic morality is intolerant--in the education of youth, in their arrangements for women, in their marriage customs, in the relations of old and young, in their penal laws (which take into account deviants only)--they consider intolerance itself a virtue, calling it 'justice.' In this way a type with few but very strong traits, a species of severe, warlike, prudently taciturn men, close-mouthed and closely linked (and as such possessed of the subtlest feeling for the charms an nuances of association), is fixed beyond the changing generations; the continual fight against ever constant unfavorable conditions is, as mentioned previously, the cause that fixes and hardens a type."

"The democratic movement is the heir of the Christian movement...witness the ever madder howling of the anarchist dogs who are baring their fangs more and more obviously and roam through the alleys of European culture. They seem opposites of the peacefully industrious democrats and ideologists of revolution, and even more so of the doltish philosophasters and brotherhood enthusiasts who call themselves socialists and want a 'free society'; but in fact they are at one with the lot in their thorough and instinctive hostility to every other form of society except the autonomous herd...They are at one in their tough resistance to every special claim, every special right and privilege (which means in the last analysis, every right: for once all are equal nobody needs 'rights' any more). They are at one in their mistrust of punitive justice...But they are also at one in the religion of pity, in feeling with all who feel, live, and suffer (down to the animal, up to 'God'--the excess of a 'pity with God' belongs in a democratic age). They are at one, the lot of them, in the cry and impatience of pity, in their deadly hatred of suffering generally, in their almost feminine inability to remain spectators, to let someone suffer." (Section 202)

"I do not say this because I want it to happen: the opposite would be rather more after my heart--I mean such an increase in the menace of Russia that Europe would have to resolve to become menacing too, namely, to acquire one will by means of a new caste that would rule Europe, a long, terrible will of its own that would be able to cast its goals millenia hence--so the long-drawn-out comedy of its many splinter states as well as its dynastic and democratic splinter wills would come to an end. The time for petty politics is over: the very next century will bring the fight for the dominion of the earth--the compulsion to large-scale politics." (Section 208)

-----

Anyways, while you definitely can't say that Nietzsche promotes fascism and provides some system or formula for fascism to work, and while you definitely can't say that he would be in favor of Nazism, you still have to acknowledge his disgust with our democratic, socialistic times. The idea of equal value from man to man was idiotic to him. That isn't to say that he was out to wipe democracy from the face of the earth. Or even Christianity for that matter. But he certainly wasn't in love with the idea.

I think Kaufmann should be greatly thanked for what he's done but at the same time, I don't completely trust him. Not that I think he's deceptive or anything but I think he's a pretty biased guy. It seems like whenever Nietzsche says something that seems really harsh or cruel, Kaufmann always has some footnote trying to explain it away. For example, after Nietzsche discusses master morality and slave morality at length in "What is Noble," Kaufmann has a footnote that says that while Nietzsche may have favored master morality, that doesn't mean he promoted it. Maybe that's technically true but it just sounds like a desperate attempt to disassociate Nietzsche with any type society that operates under some sort of strong, centralized government with militaristic "philosopher kings" at the head.

Also, on that last quote I may have misunderstood what he was saying. That passage has always confused me because I'm not 100% sure what the "I do not say this because I want this to happen" refers to. In the immediately preceding paragraph, he talks about "internal upheavals" in Europe and "shattering the empire into small units." What's confusing is that I'm not quite sure whether what he states after "the opposite would be rather more after my heart" is supposed to be the opposite that would be more after his heart or simply him rephrasing what he states in the paragraph before, meaning that it would be what the "I do not say this because I want it to happen" refers to. I'm pretty sure everything after "more after my heart" is meant to be taken as what he does prefer because he talks about Europe's "many splinter states" coming to an end whereas in the previous paragraph he talks about actually dividing or shattering the empire into individual units. So it would really only make sense that he would prefer for there to be one caste that rules Europe as a whole with democracy being out of the question. I'm glad to hear anyone's interpretation of this.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Does anyone have some more suggestions on Israel/Palestine? Somehow, I don't feel that Chomsky should be your first point of reference.

[Iskandar]

Does anyone have some more suggestions on Israel/Palestine? Somehow, I don't feel that Chomsky should be your first point of reference.I suggested Thomas Friedman. He's fairly biased most of the time.

[italic zero]

nice words

[peeted]

Yea I don't think I'd call it a fascist book but at the same time, he was extremely critical of democracy, equality, and utilitarianism.

Kind of hard to ignore section 9. "What is Noble."



-----

Anyways, while you definitely can't say that Nietzsche promotes fascism and provides some system or formula for fascism to work, and while you definitely can't say that he would be in favor of Nazism, you still have to acknowledge his disgust with our democratic, socialistic times. The idea of equal value from man to man was idiotic to him. That isn't to say that he was out to wipe democracy from the face of the earth. Or even Christianity for that matter. But he certainly wasn't in love with the idea.

I think Kaufmann should be greatly thanked for what he's done but at the same time, I don't completely trust him. Not that I think he's deceptive or anything but I think he's a pretty biased guy. It seems like whenever Nietzsche says something that seems really harsh or cruel, Kaufmann always has some footnote trying to explain it away. For example, after Nietzsche discusses master morality and slave morality at length in "What is Noble," Kaufmann has a footnote that says that while Nietzsche may have favored master morality, that doesn't mean he promoted it. Maybe that's technically true but it just sounds like a desperate attempt to disassociate Nietzsche with any type society that operates under some sort of strong, centralized government with militaristic "philosopher kings" at the head.

Also, on that last quote I may have misunderstood what he was saying. That passage has always confused me because I'm not 100% sure what the "I do not say this because I want this to happen" refers to. In the immediately preceding paragraph, he talks about "internal upheavals" in Europe and "shattering the empire into small units." What's confusing is that I'm not quite sure whether what he states after "the opposite would be rather more after my heart" is supposed to be the opposite that would be more after his heart or simply him rephrasing what he states in the paragraph before, meaning that it would be what the "I do not say this because I want it to happen" refers to. I'm pretty sure everything after "more after my heart" is meant to be taken as what he does prefer because he talks about Europe's "many splinter states" coming to an end whereas in the previous paragraph he talks about actually dividing or shattering the empire into individual units. So it would really only make sense that he would prefer for there to be one caste that rules Europe as a whole with democracy being out of the question. I'm glad to hear any-one's interpretation of this.
Could you list all the aphorisms you have quoted? i cant find them all.
Just because he criticizes pretty much every political system and philosopher before him doesn't make him a fascist, he has no political orientation and even argued that he was against the idea of political orientations.

His criticisms of anarchism, liberalism, socialism etc in aphorism 202 are about the fact that they claim one over all moral truth yet are full of argument and contradiction within themselves, and that pity is a bad basis for a moral judgement, this may seem pretty fascist at first but his main reasons for despising pity is because its demeaning both to the "pityer" and the "pityed".

I think in section 208 he is predicting the instability of mass politics, conflict is inevitable with conflicting wills, but unless a country like Russia was divided into smaller sections then its power would have to force Europe to unite to some extent out of fear. Its kind of like hes applying his criticisms of moral systems based on utility to large scale politics. Nothing especially fascist there....

[croniun]

Could you list all the aphorisms you have quoted? i cant find them all.
Just because he criticizes pretty much every political system and philosopher before him doesn't make him a fascist, he has no political orientation and even argued that he was against the idea of political orientations.

His criticisms of anarchism, liberalism, socialism etc in aphorism 202 are about the fact that they claim one over all moral truth yet are full of argument and contradiction within themselves, and that pity is a bad basis for a moral judgement, this may seem pretty fascist at first but his main reasons for despising pity is because its demeaning both to the "pityer" and the "pityed".

I think in section 208 he is predicting the instability of mass politics, conflict is inevitable with conflicting wills, but unless a country like Russia was divided into smaller sections then its power would have to force Europe to unite to some extent out of fear. Its kind of like hes applying his criticisms of moral systems based on utility to large scale politics. Nothing especially fascist there....

First quote: 257
Second: 258
Third: 259
Fourth: 259
Fifth: 260
Sixth: 260
Seventh: 262

I basically agree with everything you're saying. I would never claim that he's a fascist but I think it's safe to say that he views a democratic, socialistic society as a "sick" society; one where the virtues of the herd have been elevated by the weaker types of humans to the point that, like you were saying, the herd morality, or Christian morality, is the only morality even allowed. And by ensuring this, the herd is able to have some sort of basis to condemn those who are stronger.

[Iskandar]

I think it's safe to say that he views a democratic, socialistic society as a "sick" societyBut most Western societies are only somewhat democratic and not very socialistic at all.

[croniun]

But most Western societies are only somewhat democratic and not very socialistic at all.

Well I think he means "socialistic" in the broadest sense.

In any case, we're certainly more democratic overall than in recent centuries.

[Iskandar]

Well I think he means "socialistic" in the broadest sense.

In any case, we're certainly more democratic overall than in recent centuries.Very well, then.

[coheneran]

For every person who keeps saying anarchy can never or has never worked:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

[Smokey D]

You will notice that all of them got royally owned when some non-anarcist society showed up. Also, most of them are not anarchist even if they exhibited certain features of anarchism.

[coheneran]

That's because (and I reiterate this point at every chance I get) anarchy isn't supposed to be some sort of competition against other society types, that kind of defeats the point of anti-capitalism (a main part of modern anarchy). Also, anarchist militias usually whooped major arse, but it was always down to how much money they had, because that's the sort of society they were struggling inside.

And yes, some of them aren't my ideal anarchist societies either, but they exhibit working practicable anarchist principles, which is why I posted it in here.

[coheneran]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealand_%28HM_Fort_Roughs%29

Hahahaha! They had a WAR!

[Smokey D]

That's because (and I reiterate this point at every chance I get) anarchy isn't supposed to be some sort of competition against other society types, that kind of defeats the point of anti-capitalism (a main part of modern anarchy).

Well, I think scarcity of resources and non-homogeneity of ideas are always going to lead to some sort of conflict.

Also, anarchist militias usually whooped major arse, but it was always down to how much money they had, because that's the sort of society they were struggling inside.

Anarchist militias are reasonably successful in the short term, but none have been able to sustain themselves against a prolonged assault by an industrialised, hierarchical military power.

[coheneran]

Well, I think scarcity of resources and non-homogeneity of ideas are always going to lead to some sort of conflict.

Not in my experience, that's what's great about anarchy; it's a way of living that can encompass all ideologies so long as principles or respect and acceptance are followed. It just requires the sensible and common thought-process of "I'll do what I feel most comfortable with, I don't need to force it on anybody else."

Anarchist militias are reasonably successful in the short term, but none have been able to sustain themselves against a prolonged assault by an industrialised, hierarchical military power.

You're just repeating what you said before, all I can do is repeat what I said.

[Smokey D]

Not in my experience, that's what's great about anarchy; it's a way of living that can encompass all ideologies so long as principles or respect and acceptance are followed. It just requires the sensible and common thought-process of "I'll do what I feel most comfortable with, I don't need to force it on anybody else."

The resources you're trying to gain aren't scarce, and you're associating with a particular group of people in a particular location in a cultural reference. They aren't going to have fundamentally different ideas to you on anarchism, or at least not different enough to provoke conflict. It's quite a different kettle of fish to have the global population running like that.


You're just repeating what you said before, all I can do is repeat what I said

Well, I'm repeating myself because that's what happened. No matter how much you qualify their failure, they still failed.

[coheneran]

They failed because they weren't competing, but replacing. Capitalism competes and anarchy doesn't, out of principle.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Could you respond to Smokey D's first point?



The resources you're trying to gain aren't scarce, and you're associating with a particular group of people in a particular location in a cultural reference. They aren't going to have fundamentally different ideas to you on anarchism, or at least not different enough to provoke conflict. It's quite a different kettle of fish to have the global population running like that.

[coheneran]

The resources you're trying to gain aren't scarce, and you're associating with a particular group of people in a particular location in a cultural reference. They aren't going to have fundamentally different ideas to you on anarchism, or at least not different enough to provoke conflict. It's quite a different kettle of fish to have the global population running like that.

(Just to get it out of the way: I was directing my post more about the non-homogeneity part than the resource part, because there isn't such a scarcity of resources in London that we fight over stuff, but working together to survive off resources is more logical and efficient than fighting over them, but let's not get into economics right now.)

You're right, I can't live in the same place as a group of fascists (or similarly intolerant groups), but racists, nationalists and fascists are in every case just extremely misguided and manipulated by power-hungry individuals that given a short length of time and a group of my peers I could, non-violently, convince a fascist that she is wrong and tolerance and acceptance are the way to go.

I don't see why the world can't work like that; there's no indication that human beings lean towards intolerance.

:thumb::)

[shugzz]

Thus Spoke Zarathustra is my book for spring break

And this is a real shot in the dark but does anyone here do policy debate

[Smokey D]

You're right, I can't live in the same place as a group of fascists (or similarly intolerant groups), but racists, nationalists and fascists are in every case just extremely misguided and manipulated by power-hungry individuals that given a short length of time and a group of my peers I could, non-violently, convince a fascist that she is wrong and tolerance and acceptance are the way to go.

I don't see why you would be any more able to convince them than they would be able to do the same to you.

I don't see why the world can't work like that; there's no indication that human beings lean towards intolerance.

:thumb::)

What, you mean aside from pretty much all of history?

[Iskandar]

What, you mean aside from pretty much all of history?There was a time in history when we hunted woolly mammoth with spears and packs of dogs while clad in animal fur. My, how things change.

[Smokey D]

And we killed each other then too.

[Iskandar]

And we killed each other then too.Yeah, we also didn't have the rule of law to punish each other and wow is this ever going in circles.

[Smokey D]

Well, history suggests a tendency not an inevitability. Hopefully there will be a time when we are sufficiently enlightened not to fight and kill one another.

[Iskandar]

Well, history suggests a tendency not an inevitability. Hopefully there will be a time when we are sufficiently enlightened not to fight and kill one another.Not to any significant extent. I'm certain that will come along in time.

[pedro durruti]

How do we know that, once we reach some point like that, we don't just fall back down? It'll probably take something disastrous to do that though.

[femme fatale]

What, you mean aside from pretty much all of history?

Sorry to reply to an old post in this conversation, but:

I think that generally throughout history people have spent time not murdering other people more than they've spent it murdering other people.

Essential political reading: http://colours.mahost.org/articles/crass15.html

[Smokey D]

Should I put John Rawls' A Theory of Justice on the list? It's probably the most one of the most important books in liberal theory since the war.

[griftadan]

i just read parts of that for philosophy, i don't see why it wouldn't belong.

[peeted]

Should I put John Rawls' A Theory of Justice on the list? It's probably the most one of the most important books in liberal theory since the war.
Agreed :thumb:

[gregulus]

This book isn't really political, but it talks about a lot of current world situations and it's very interesting...

Kurt Vonneguts - Man Without A Country

I've been a Vonnegut fan since I read Slaughterhouse-Five and I picked this book up 3 days ago. Very good read, not very long.

[Danish]

Should I put John Rawls' A Theory of Justice on the list? It's probably the most one of the most important books in liberal theory since the war.

It's on there.

[Reaganista]

Should I put John Rawls' A Theory of Justice on the list? It's probably the most one of the most important books in liberal theory since the war.

there's a lot of stuff on the list already that's both less noteworthy and thought out imo

i'd suggests rebuttals by Walzer and Pogge too

because Walzer was widely read and Pogge has a good argument

[Smokey D]

It's on there.

I put it there.


i'd suggests rebuttals by Walzer and Pogge too

because Walzer was widely read and Pogge has a good argument

Are they strictly essential, though?

[GreyHam]

can i put in a request for T.H Green 'lectures on political obligation' ??

its good stuff, i swear

[Smokey D]

Give us a description.

[GreyHam]

social contract theorist, post Rousseau, every man has moral obligation and its the responsibility of the state to assist in this task, not to take responsibility away from the individual. state funded schools hospitals and other public neccesities, education shouldnt be the confine of the rich, regularly lectured to the working class, believed that citizens had a duty to overthrow and replace governments that didnt meet certain criteria

[Smokey D]

What's the publication date?

Also, is it truly essential? How would you rate its influence on modern political theory, and was it truly unique in its theoretical developments? If we just put every interesting and compelling piece of political philosophy on the list, we're going to run out of room pretty quickly.

To that end, Danish, would you be opposed to me re-structuring it so that we have a list of foundational works and a list of related and interesting, but nonetheless less influential works (the lists you gave on the history of the workers' movement, for example)?

[GreyHam]

my copy doesnt have it in, im having difficulty finding it online...

as its a collection of lectures it wasnt published until after his death... published early 20th century, written mid 19th

[peeted]

How about "Course in General Linguistics" by Ferdinand de Saussure.

His linguistic theory basically shaped all post modern philosophy and can be found in most other schools of 20th century thought. We wouldn't have thinkers such as Levi Strauss, Foucault, Althusser, Wittgenstein, derrida Lyotard etc if it wasn't for him.

It would probably go in the post modernism section, its not post modernism but its what post structuralism and deconstructionism came from so that would seem the logical place to put it.

It was published in 1916

[pedro durruti]

Much of politics is dependent on philosophical thought, though. And why don't you believe Foucault should be on there?

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

heh i deleted instead of editing it

Much of politics is dependent on philosophical thought, though.ok but that doesn't justify putting Saussare on the list.

And why don't you believe Foucault should be on there?
I'm not sure why he qualifies as "essential political reading"?

[pedro durruti]

Well, he did a lot on the concept of power. I don't know if his works are essential, but power is a fairly important concept to understand in politics.

[peeted]

Most of the books listed are philosophy books. Saussure's work is "essential" because unlike many of the books listed it is the actual foundation for the entire post modernist movement. Understanding structuralism/post structuralism is a hell of a lot easier if you understand Saussure.

In fact come to think of it i can hardly imagine symbolic interactionism without Saussure either.

Another thing: why is Weber's protestant ethic in the "Marxism/anti Marxism" section? Its neither a Marxist work or a critique of Marxism. Its got more to do with social action theory and political history.

[GreyHam]

What's the publication date?

Also, is it truly essential? How would you rate its influence on modern political theory, and was it truly unique in its theoretical developments? If we just put every interesting and compelling piece of political philosophy on the list, we're going to run out of room pretty quickly.

To that end, Danish, would you be opposed to me re-structuring it so that we have a list of foundational works and a list of related and interesting, but nonetheless less influential works (the lists you gave on the history of the workers' movement, for example)?

well that depends - he was one of Britains most radical philosophers at the time, and both socialists and liberalists regard him highly

certainly more so than some of the others that are up ther :p

[pedro durruti]

Another thing: why is Weber's protestant ethic in the "Marxism/anti Marxism" section? Its neither a Marxist work or a critique of Marxism. Its got more to do with social action theory and political history.
That's what I was thinking.

[Danish]

Another thing: why is Weber's protestant ethic in the "Marxism/anti Marxism" section? Its neither a Marxist work or a critique of Marxism. Its got more to do with social action theory and political history.

Marx wrote about essentially the same things. When you study sociology, Weber is generally presented as the "anti-Marx". That doesn't mean he hated Marx or something like that, it's more like his theory is the "antithesis" to Marx.

[peeted]

Its an antithesis to positivism, that's not exclusive to Marx though, it includes Durkheim, Compte etc.

[Reaganista]

Are they strictly essential, though?
not really

but essential appears to have been defined incredibly broady in this thread

I'm not sure why he qualifies as "essential political reading"?
because he was a hugely influencial author who wrote on government and social structures?

[Africa]

can I get some suggestions on essential historical reading for all any epochs and eras--preferably as objective and unbiased as possible.

[Smokey D]

Unbiased history is hardly worth the point. All histories have a theory as to why history happened the way it did. If you just want the bare faced facts and no analysis, read an encyclopedia.

[Africa]

Aren't some histories embarassingly biased, and some are far more esteemed in analysis and severing of allegiance to any nationalism, idealism, etc.

If so, what are they

[italic zero]

primary sources are almost all horribly biased, but they're still the best thing to read

[pedro durruti]

Just don't read anything put out by the bourgeoisie, they'll just skip over the whole class struggle thing

[Smokey D]

primary sources are almost all horribly biased, but they're still the best thing to read

I disagree. They're important, but primary sources aren't going to give you an accurate picture of what happened.

Just don't read anything put out by the bourgeoisie, they'll just skip over the whole class struggle thing

Joke?

[pedro durruti]

As much of a joke it was, he should still try to avoid any book that omits the class struggle as an important theme.

[Smokey D]

Class struggle as the conflict between those who own the means of production and those who work it is rarely the central narritive in historical events. It's not even always is relevant at all.

Certainly, it plays a role and has been the major engine to some events, but limiting your reading to works that base themselves on class conflict isn't going to get you very far.

[pedro durruti]

I know all that, but I think it's important that any historic writer, when it is indeed relevant, should recognize that obvious divide in society and how it in turn shapes historical events.

[Smokey D]

Well, yeah, but at the same time some writers construct a class conflict narritive where it isn't appropriate. You didn't just say he should avoid works that avoid relavent class conflict ideas but that he should avoid all books that don't talk about class conflict, which is actually far more limiting than it is helpful.

[pedro durruti]

Vell, although "historical reading for all any epochs" is a confusing sentence for obvious reasons, I chose the first word and assumed he meant that he wanted a book that encompassed the history of civilization, and class struggle will be highly relevant in a book like that.

[Smokey D]

There are multiple other narrative that are very important, perhaps more so than class conflict. Books that focus on class conflict tend to minimise the importance of these other engines for change, which isn't helpful. If anything, he should read books that include class conflict and books that don't to give him a rounded perspective.

And as I said, Marxists and other proponents of class conflict theory often construct scenarios where it isn't relevant and then insist that it is.

[Danish]

Class struggle as the conflict between those who own the means of production and those who work it is rarely the central narritive in historical events. It's not even always is relevant at all.

Certainly, it plays a role and has been the major engine to some events, but limiting your reading to works that base themselves on class conflict isn't going to get you very far.

Class conflict is the driving force behind the material development of society. A Marxist history isn't so much a study of specific events, but of changing political economy and relationships. A Marxist analysis of the American Revolution, for instance, is completely diametrically opposed to the typical (what I would call a liberal) history that focuses on individuals and their specific actions. It isn't about looking at or emphasizing certain events and people over others, it's a totally different analysis.

[Smokey D]

Class conflict is the driving force behind the material development of society.

Failure to see history as anything other than material is what I'm getting at.

A Marxist history isn't so much a study of specific events, but of changing political economy and relationships. A Marxist analysis of the American Revolution, for instance, is completely diametrically opposed to the typical (what I would call a liberal) history that focuses on individuals and their specific actions. It isn't about looking at or emphasizing certain events and people over others, it's a totally different analysis.

I know what Marxist history is. And obviously class conflict applies to the American Revolution (though there are other developments that were important quite unrelated to class conflict -- war between the colonists and the British government was almost as much a war between two bourgeois interests as it was between monarchist and anti-monarachist, liberal and conservative etc forces).

My point was that there are other narritives that shouldn't be subsumed into and obscured by the class dialectic.

But I disagree with your last point. Marxist history is all about emphasising certain events. What do you think revolutions are?

[Krabsworth]

A great book about the current cluster**** in Iraq is Chasing Ghosts, by Paul Rieckhoff.
http://www.paulrieckhoff.com/content/book.asp

[pedro durruti]

Can someone recommend something by Sartre?

[Iskandar]

Can someone recommend something by Sartre?
Being and Nothingness is supposed to be his magnum opus, I think, but it looks like a real brick. It may take a while to read.

[pedro durruti]

I'm ready for the journey. Thank you.

[lfantwister]

If you have a lot of time and a bit of weed it's an amazing read. But if youre impatient its godawful, Ihear

[croniun]

Can someone recommend something by Sartre?

The Wall

http://perso.orange.fr/chabrieres/texts/sartre_thewall.html

[peeted]

Can someone recommend something by Sartre?

No exit and Nausea are an easy way in, then read a couple of introductions. Don't even attempt Being and Nothingness without a fair bit of knowledge under your belt, it really is supposed to be one of the hardest books out there. Worth attempting once you have the background knowledge though.

[italic zero]

The Devil and the Good Lord is his best play, but the first thing you read should definitely be Existentialism is a Humanism.

[Mr. Ron]

Is there an author who is considered THE expert on ancient rome?

[Iskandar]

Is there an author who is considered THE expert on ancient rome?Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is quite well known, but I don't know if it's what you're looking for.

[Hababi]

What about early history? Like, as in 3000-2000 BC?

[Iskandar]

What about early history? Like, as in 3000-2000 BC?The early history of what?

[Hababi]

The early history of what?

The world :p

Or particular subsections of it

[Iskandar]

The world :p

Or particular subsections of itI don't know, to be honest. It can't be too hard to find books on the subject.

[Hababi]

I don't know, to be honest. It can't be too hard to find books on the subject.

Yeah but I want only the best books :o:smash:

[Iskandar]

Yeah but I want only the best books :o:smash:Eh, there are people who are more knowledgeable about history who can answer that.

If you want some really accurate ancient history, open your Bible to Genesis.:|

[Smokey D]

Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is quite well known, but I don't know if it's what you're looking for.

The historiography of that is pretty out of date.

Trying to find a singular expert on any historical subject is pretty bad historical practice. No history is written in a vacuum, even ones by experts, and if you only expose yourself to one historiography you're going to receive a biased account.

[Mr. Ron]

Oh. I was watching the history channel and some elderly man who was considered "The end all expert on ancient rome" did a documentary.

[Smokey D]

The History Channel is usually pop-history though, and is very sensationalised.

[Reaganista]

THE REAL LIFE STORY OF NOAH'S ARK ON THE HISTORY CHANNEL
more at 8

[Mr. Ron]

Hahaha

[gregulus]

the history channel is still one of the more interesting channels on television...

[Smokey D]

Sure, but it's not always particularly accurate or nuanced history.

[Mr. Ron]

What do you guy's think of Carl Jung's ideas and literature?

[pedro durruti]

Jung had an idea from the confusion of his dream
Then there were a thousand more waiting to be seen
You're not yourself, the theory says
But I can help, your complex pays

[peeted]

For ancient Rome look up Fergus Miller and Collin Wells. They are supposed to be the current experts in the uk, Ronald Syme is probably worth looking up too, may be a lil out dated now though.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

Can someone recommend something by Sartre?

Existentialism and Humanism is good. It's a translation of a transcript of a lecture he gave about his philosophy, Existentialism, and gives a really interesting insight into his main ideas, which are further developed through a number of media such as plays (eg. Huis Clos (sp?)) and novels. I hear B&N is good but probs not if you know nothing about his ideas.

But yeah, I strongly advise, Sartre's ideas are amazing.

Should I put John Rawls' A Theory of Justice on the list? It's probably the most one of the most important books in liberal theory since the war.


Definitely, I think it definitely helps understanding of the "modern liberals" or whatever you want to call them; perhaps draw a contrast between him and his critic Robert Nozick who was much more a "classical liberal", in that he followed Mill's harm principle to its logical conclusion (i.e. the so-called New Right) whereas others such as Rawls favoured Mill's liberal ideology as defined by his ideas rather than just the harm principle. Obviously there's more to each than that, but it would be a good introduction to it I think.

[peeted]

Nozick is a libertarian not a classic liberal.

[Dave de Sylvia]

The Wall

http://perso.orange.fr/chabrieres/texts/sartre_thewall.html

I agree.

[Smokey D]

Nozick is a libertarian not a classic liberal.

Yeah, but he claims to be the logical progression of classical liberalism.

[Reaganista]

wilt chamberlain taught me libertarianism

[Smokey D]

That's only a little bit of libertarianism. Nozick's not the be all and end all like he is sometimes made out to be.

[Reaganista]

and these mythological other libertarians...
do they have arguments that don't totally suck? > >

[Smokey D]

Some of them.

I'm not a libertarian, so I obviously haven't been completely convinced.

Murray Rothbard wrote a criticism of Anarchy which is pretty good, though it's more a rejection of Nozick than a self-sufficient argument. There's other stuff, like mutual advantage theory etc but I haven't really researched them.

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/1_1/1_1_6.pdf

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

Nozick is a libertarian not a classic liberal.

I really can't see the difference. Although in reality there is much more of a complex spectrum, the two main different ideas are called different things, "modern" and "classical" by some.

I'm assuming here that both use Mill as a starting point, which seems reasonable to me but could of course be totally out. The classical liberals will follow Mill's harm principle as he intended it, i.e. the only reason for state interference is to protect direct physical harm by one person to another, which inevitably leads to a very minimalist state, personal freedom being supreme, very low tax (only for law and order), what Berlin called negative freedom; a very Hobbes-like society in my opinion (but obviously with a democracy. This seems to me to be pretty much the same as libertarianism, hence perhaps the claim of Nozick being the logical conclusion of liberalism.

The "modern" liberals, however, would follow the idea of equal liberty to all, and perhaps the government helping people when they have a certain goal to achieve, etc, i.e. enabling, while maintaining plenty of personal freedom. This seems much more true to Mill's ideology to me, as there is the typically ambiguous relationship between individual and society, which mill sought to clear up by roughly equating personal liberty with human/moral development and so also utilitarianism, i.e. happiness for society as a whole. These would include Rawls, etc, him being to the "left" side of the liberal spectrum.

Between these two extremes there is a whole lot of middle ground under which I think most, if not all, governments fall, at least in the West, as personal freedom in most such countries is highly valued, including parties such as the UK's LibDems being somewhere between the two (they themselves were formed by the merger of Social Democrat and Liberal parties, uniting the two "sides" of the coin, although as is always the case in practical politics there are not such clear divides).


Just to be clear, libertarianism does mean what would be called uber-right economics combined with very liberal laws on society (i.e. bottom right corner of the political spectrum)? I'm never quite sure how people use terminology as some people, especially from different countries, use it in different ways.

[Smokey D]

Nozick doesn't use Mill as a starting point, though. He uses Locke and more importantly Kant. Kant's categorical imperative to treat people as ends not means is the origin of the non-intervention principle in Nozick, not Mill's harm principle.

[peeted]

I really can't see the difference. Although in reality there is much more of a complex spectrum, the two main different ideas are called different things, "modern" and "classical" by some.

I'm assuming here that both use Mill as a starting point, which seems reasonable to me but could of course be totally out. The classical liberals will follow Mill's harm principle as he intended it, i.e. the only reason for state interference is to protect direct physical harm by one person to another, which inevitably leads to a very minimalist state, personal freedom being supreme, very low tax (only for law and order), what Berlin called negative freedom; a very Hobbes-like society in my opinion (but obviously with a democracy. This seems to me to be pretty much the same as libertarianism, hence perhaps the claim of Nozick being the logical conclusion of liberalism.

The "modern" liberals, however, would follow the idea of equal liberty to all, and perhaps the government helping people when they have a certain goal to achieve, etc, i.e. enabling, while maintaining plenty of personal freedom. This seems much more true to Mill's ideology to me, as there is the typically ambiguous relationship between individual and society, which mill sought to clear up by roughly equating personal liberty with human/moral development and so also utilitarianism, i.e. happiness for society as a whole. These would include Rawls, etc, him being to the "left" side of the liberal spectrum.

Between these two extremes there is a whole lot of middle ground under which I think most, if not all, governments fall, at least in the West, as personal freedom in most such countries is highly valued, including parties such as the UK's LibDems being somewhere between the two (they themselves were formed by the merger of Social Democrat and Liberal parties, uniting the two "sides" of the coin, although as is always the case in practical politics there are not such clear divides).


Just to be clear, libertarianism does mean what would be called uber-right economics combined with very liberal laws on society (i.e. bottom right corner of the political spectrum)? I'm never quite sure how people use terminology as some people, especially from different countries, use it in different ways.
Has someone been revising for their political philosophy exam on friday?.....I have too :)

I hate Nozicks selective use of Kant, people being ends in themselves is a good argument against positive discrimination but not of a minimalist state.

[Smokey D]

I think the appeal to Kant is reasonable. If you can't use people as means, then you can't take their stuff to improve other people's ends.

Does everyone have politics exams coming up or something? I got one on Thursday.

[peeted]

Yes but assuming that everyone in a society acts as if everyone else was an end in themselves it would provide a pretty good argument for a welfare state developing naturally, the same way he provides an argument for a legal system developing naturally. I think he uses Kant selectively to suet his own ends.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

Has someone been revising for their political philosophy exam on friday?.....I have too :)

I hate Nozicks selective use of Kant, people being ends in themselves is a good argument against positive discrimination but not of a minimalist state.


Haha I have been indeed! A levels ftw eh. I'm so glad I did that course, really got me into both philosophy and politics. Are you doing Nietzsche as the set work?

I think the appeal to Kant is reasonable. If you can't use people as means, then you can't take their stuff to improve other people's ends.

Does everyone have politics exams coming up or something? I got one on Thursday.

It's a part of A level philosophy, or at least mine is.

Yes but assuming that everyone in a society acts as if everyone else was an end in themselves it would provide a pretty good argument for a welfare state developing naturally, the same way he provides an argument for a legal system developing naturally. I think he uses Kant selectively to suet his own ends.

I agree here, it's "positive freedom", developing human potential for its own sake, and all that. Of course, the trouble is deciding what counts as enabling and what counts as unnecessary or unwanted interference, which ultimately depends on the point of view. This I think is the difference between modern liberals and socialists, as socialists are for equality, etc, whereas modern liberals are more for enabling people to do what they want, although arguably the actual difference in terms of what happens is always clear, and you would be hard pressed to get everyone to agree on the same goals (although Rawls thought you could via the Original Position of course, which IMO is pretty darn good). Then again, arguably minimal government is using people as a means to an end, for example there are always those who will do things that use others as a means to an end if there are not laws against such things, and so I think you're right about his selective use of Kant. If he is against welfarism because of using others as a means to an end, then it would be coherent for him to also advocate laws against using others as a means to an end, i.e. Kantian laws governing all of society (if such a thing were possible). This would be a contradiction though, as Kant said (imperative 3 I believe) that each should be self-governing with regard to morality and not interfere with other people's duties (which would support minimalism). Thus it seems that Kant cannot be really be used as a basis for a system of government, and Nozick's idea just uses Kant totally selectively; if he didn't it would be contradictory.

[peeted]

Haha I have been indeed! A levels ftw eh. I'm so glad I did that course, really got me into both philosophy and politics. Are you doing Nietzsche as the set work?

I agree here, it's "positive freedom", developing human potential for its own sake, and all that. Of course, the trouble is deciding what counts as enabling and what counts as unnecessary or unwanted interference, which ultimately depends on the point of view. This I think is the difference between modern liberals and socialists, as socialists are for equality, etc, whereas modern liberals are more for enabling people to do what they want, although arguably the actual difference in terms of what happens is always clear, and you would be hard pressed to get everyone to agree on the same goals (although Rawls thought you could via the Original Position of course, which IMO is pretty darn good). Then again, arguably minimal government is using people as a means to an end, for example there are always those who will do things that use others as a means to an end if there are not laws against such things, and so I think you're right about his selective use of Kant. If he is against welfarism because of using others as a means to an end, then it would be coherent for him to also advocate laws against using others as a means to an end, i.e. Kantian laws governing all of society (if such a thing were possible). This would be a contradiction though, as Kant said (imperative 3 I believe) that each should be self-governing with regard to morality and not interfere with other people's duties (which would support minimalism). Thus it seems that Kant cannot be really be used as a basis for a system of government, and Nozick's idea just uses Kant totally selectively; if he didn't it would be contradictory.
Yea im doing Nietzsche too, Iv enjoyed the A level philosophy corse so much that its what im doing at uni.
I also dont think that any capitalist system would work if everyone lived by kants philosophy, because for any sort of profitable financial action there must be a winner and a loser which means someone has been used as the means to an end (the end being a profit) so this doesn't fit in with Nozicks conclusions at all.
I just dont like Nozick.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

Yea im doing Nietzsche too, Iv enjoyed the A level philosophy corse so much that its what im doing at uni.
I also dont think that any capitalist system would work if everyone lived by kants philosophy, because for any sort of profitable financial action there must be a winner and a loser which means someone has been used as the means to an end (the end being a profit) so this doesn't fit in with Nozicks conclusions at all.
I just dont like Nozick.

Yeah I agree. Oho I see a link to Nietzsche: exploitation is a fundamental condition of life, a product of the Will to Power, etc.

And yeah I also hate Nozick, he sounds like such a **** haha. We didn't study him in much detail but from what I've looked up.... yeah nuff said.

Where are you doing it at Uni?


By the way, why is Nietzche's Beyond Good and Evil still there under fascism? Nietzsche was in no way a fascist, and even if you were going to choose one of his books to back up a fascist ideology it would not be that one! I brought this up before but clearly nothing has happened about it. Simply reading the book in question will confirm this; I did this just last week. The only "fascist" book as such would the the Will To Power, but this was heavily edited and made from material used selectively by his sister after he died to make him seem very anti-semitic (she even had Hitler round to her house I believe). Even so, this would be rediculous as Nietzsche was very much against nationalism, which is an essential element of fascism, which is, as I understand it, a unified nation striving towards a common goal as embodied by the leader (or something like that at least), and also anti-semitism is not necessary to fascism. So yeah, what on Earth is it doing there?

Also how about a bit of Max Stirner under the anarchy section?

Oh another thing. Althought similar, neoconservatism and neoliberalism are different things. Neoliberalism is largely economic but can be tied in with either libertarianism (a la Friedmann) or greater social concerns (e.g. Baghwati - I can highly recomment In Defense of Globalisation from pg. 1 of this thread , although I have some gnarly questions for him that he skipped over a little or gave what I thought was an inadequate answer). Neoconservatism however is more of a social thing, a sort of interventionist conservatism, and in fact Bush's government has a lot of protectionism and cronyism with business so isn't really neoliberal in that sense at all. There was an excellent programme on the BBC about NeoConservatism a while back, called something like The Power Of Nightmares - will look up to see if there is a book related to it as it showed the ideology from a historical context and linked it to other countries and leaders other than the current US administration.

[Smokey D]

Personally, I think the categories are somewhat arbitrary or misinformed. For example, I would say that neoconservatism and neoliberalism are not very similar at all, mainly for reasons you pointed out.

But at the same time, while I am a moderator and do possess the power to change the first post I am reluctant to do so because a) I'm not knowledgeable enough to put everything in the right spot either b) I don't really have the time and c) this isn't my thread.

Also, people should be left up to categorise the works on their own.

Yes but assuming that everyone in a society acts as if everyone else was an end in themselves it would provide a pretty good argument for a welfare state developing naturally, the same way he provides an argument for a legal system developing naturally. I think he uses Kant selectively to suet his own ends.

Howzat? A welfare state taxes people to improve other people's standard of living. That's using them as means not ends.

Welfare states being inherently coercive and therefore different to charity, where your principle might apply.

[peeted]

Yes but Nozick argues that out of anarchy a Law enforcement state would arise which people pay taxes towards instead of paying like a private business, the same way if everyone lives by the kantian ethic then charity would be universal and so would logically end up as a tax just like peoples taxes toward the police and military.

[Smokey D]

But individuals pay the pre-state to protect their own ends, not the ends of others.

Not that I think Nozick's argument is wholly coherent or anything though. I wrote an argument against it for a paper earlier this semester.

[totah]

I'm reading Illuminatus! Trilogy right now. It's pretty good. I mean, he puts forward loads of great ideas and makes interesting points, but I'm not much for that whole Illuminati conspiracy theory. The vested interests theory is a much simpler way of explaining the same circumstances.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

But individuals pay the pre-state to protect their own ends, not the ends of others.

Not that I think Nozick's argument is wholly coherent or anything though. I wrote an argument against it for a paper earlier this semester.

Well I think that Nozick's argument that the welfare state uses people as a means to an end is fine, but I think that he forgets , but by each other instead. In fact, everything involves using others as a means to an end. His argument rests on the acceptance of Kant's categorical imperatives, which I don't actually accept. If both his system and the welfare system use others as a means to an end, then it makes sense, surely, to make the ends that are reached as good as possible. By accepting Kant's premises unequivically, Nozick seems to ignore any consequences of either idea, which I think is a tad foolish. Also, to assume that everyone would follow Kant's maxims is stupidly naive.

[BlackPrinceK]

Also how about a bit of Max Stirner under the anarchy section?



Sorry for butting in but I have to comment on Stirner. :) His "Ego and its Own" is excellent, and even though I haven't read it completely , its value is obvious (sad to say that if it wasn't for Marx's criticism of him we wouldn't even know of Stirner). The concepts presented in the book though are completely unusable just like the entire anarcho-liberalism (which he doesn't belong to but retains similar views) :smoke:

[StreetlightRock]

May i suggest Hayden White's Metahistory, being perhaps one of the most important works on Post-modern historical theory in quite a while?

Also, the two Foucault books listed up there are his attempts at 'history' - while they do talk about 'post modernism', his other works, like Power/Knowledge and The Archeology of Knowledge are probably more appropriate for someone wanting to get a handle on Post Modern Theory

The Feminist section is seriously lacking Germaine Greer.

The Political History section seems to be a 'marxist history' section.

Other than that, thats a pretty decent list.

[Danish]

Yeah I agree. Oho I see a link to Nietzsche: exploitation is a fundamental condition of life, a product of the Will to Power, etc.

And yeah I also hate Nozick, he sounds like such a **** haha. We didn't study him in much detail but from what I've looked up.... yeah nuff said.

Where are you doing it at Uni?


By the way, why is Nietzche's Beyond Good and Evil still there under fascism? Nietzsche was in no way a fascist, and even if you were going to choose one of his books to back up a fascist ideology it would not be that one! I brought this up before but clearly nothing has happened about it. Simply reading the book in question will confirm this; I did this just last week. The only "fascist" book as such would the the Will To Power, but this was heavily edited and made from material used selectively by his sister after he died to make him seem very anti-semitic (she even had Hitler round to her house I believe). Even so, this would be rediculous as Nietzsche was very much against nationalism, which is an essential element of fascism, which is, as I understand it, a unified nation striving towards a common goal as embodied by the leader (or something like that at least), and also anti-semitism is not necessary to fascism. So yeah, what on Earth is it doing there?

Also how about a bit of Max Stirner under the anarchy section?

Oh another thing. Althought similar, neoconservatism and neoliberalism are different things. Neoliberalism is largely economic but can be tied in with either libertarianism (a la Friedmann) or greater social concerns (e.g. Baghwati - I can highly recomment In Defense of Globalisation from pg. 1 of this thread , although I have some gnarly questions for him that he skipped over a little or gave what I thought was an inadequate answer). Neoconservatism however is more of a social thing, a sort of interventionist conservatism, and in fact Bush's government has a lot of protectionism and cronyism with business so isn't really neoliberal in that sense at all. There was an excellent programme on the BBC about NeoConservatism a while back, called something like The Power Of Nightmares - will look up to see if there is a book related to it as it showed the ideology from a historical context and linked it to other countries and leaders other than the current US administration.

The reason I never moved it is because no one gave me a good argue as to where in the list it should go. And, rightly or wrongly, Nietschze's work was influential in fascism.

Who is that and what did they write?

************

I explained the neoliberal/neoconservative thing to my friend the other day like this:

Neoliberalism and neoconservatism are two heads on the same beast. Neither of them are actually used in practice as they are claimed to, but both form ideological frameworks on which our society is built. Neoliberalism has regenerated the individual as a sort of mythological political element, the source of all good and all evil at once. It has also served as an ideological cover for so-called "deregulation" of the economy, something that was supposed to generate enormous wealth (which it did, for the people who already had wealth).

Neoconservatism is the other side of this, the ideological justification for the use of force. It holds up the US as an "exceptional state" that alone has the right to violate international norms and laws. This is because the US alone can bear the burden of spreading democracy and freedom to the darkest corners of the globe.

In other words, these are both bourgeois theories of domination, buttered up to find acceptance amongst the masses. It's not a new phenomenon. Just calling them "neo" theories implies that they're simply rehashed from the old (which they are). And I don't think it's a coincidence that both theories have come to bear at the same time, either. It's part of a larger project.

It should be noted, though, that neoliberalism is far more pervasive than neoconservatism.

[peeted]

I dont think Nietzsche's beyond good and evil is essential political reading at all, infact he described himself as A-Political, rejecting the whole idea of political philosophy.

[italic zero]

i dunno i think you probably shouldn't be in politics if you haven't read nietzsche but that also goes for shakespeare

[croniun]

I dont think Nietzsche's beyond good and evil is essential political reading at all, infact he described himself as A-Political, rejecting the whole idea of political philosophy.

Sometimes I wonder if Nietzsche's "apolitical" stance is due more in part to Kaufmann then it is to Nietzsche himself.

Nietzsche may have avoided being categorized into some set political position but I don't see how he ever rejected the idea of political philosophy.

[Reaganista]

nietzsche is ****ing garbage

[Danish]

Unfortunately, philosophers don't get to choose how their work will influence people after their death. Clearly, Nietzsche's work was influential on 20th century political and social thought.

As for being "garbage", I personally disagree with most of Nietzsche's ideas as well.

[croniun]

As do I but I wouldn't call his work garbage.

I think a lot of people end up reading his later works only and they're left with an impression of some angry, bitter guy with too much time on his hands...so they end up completely ignoring his earlier works.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I quite like Nietzsche. All that Ubermensch stuff I find an ideal to aspire to. If you take the concept of ubermensch as a realized, intelligent person who activly stifles their own ignorance. I'm elitist by nature. But assuming that your inate racial characteristics make you superior is lazy and phenomenally retarded.

[peeted]

The best way to read Nietzsche is to read a couple of his books and a couple of in depth analysis of his works instead of spending ages reading loads of his stiff, alot of it is hard to get anything of any use out of and there are some very un-bias books on Nietzsche available.

And having re-read the passage and notes i was referencing when i described Nietzsche as rejecting political philosophy i take it back, he doesn't do that, but he does try his hardest to remove himself from the political spectrum, he is certainly not a fascist, and although it is un deniable that he did influence many Nazis and also Mussolini i still hardly see it as essential political reading. I think if you do keep Nietzsche in the fascism section you should atleast swap Beyond good and evil with the will to power.

Also if you read His early work and his later work the best you can hope for is your own confused interpretation, he changed his mind so many times during his life that the early Nietzsche and the late Nietzsche are almost different philosophers, I personaly consider the mid to late Nietzsche more worthwhile, simply because its more influential and so links to so much more 20th century philosophy.

Also as for agreeing with him i (like most of you probably) used to find him amazing and very agreeable but in time i have found so many other philosophers (like Sartre) who have said what i agreed with in Nietzsche's work without all the crap he spouts. He is certainly a great bridge from 18th and 19th century philosophy to 20th century philosophy though.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I think "forcing" Nietzsche in a fascistic sense doesn't work. You aspire to and struggle to be a superman, to be better than those around you. Making that state rule almost removes the incentive.

[peeted]

Not really, if you remove the idea that people are born Ubermensch (Nietzsche never really gave a satisfactory argument for why only certain people have that potential) and accept that anyone has Ubermensch potential You have a pretty good argument for a state which creates excessive amounts of positive freedom. Which is what many extreem states aim to do at the start.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

True. I guess what I took away from was more personal than intended. I read it in high school in a angsty teenager phase and thus I took a more individualist view. Basically a "fu'ck all you guys, someday I shall piss on you all from a great hight".

[croniun]

Twilight of the Idols is one of my favorites from Nietzsche's works...sections 38-40 especially; My conception of freedom, Critique of modernity, and The labor question. I agree with him 100% on what he has to say about marriage in sec. 39.

"There are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions." :p

[Der Übermensch]

I don't think I really need to bother speaking up about my appreciation and general defense of Nietzschean philosophy?

[croniun]

What's the most common misconception of Nietzsche that you've had to put up with?

[Der Übermensch]

His percieved association with Nazism.
And his opinions on Christ come in at a close second. People don't understand that it was Christianity he despised, not the man.

[Mr. Ron]

Or perhaps just how Christians interpreted Christianity?

[Reaganista]

What's the most common misconception of Nietzsche that you've had to put up with?
that he had a single idea at any point in his life that has any kind of merit or accuracy
yep that's the one

[croniun]

Or perhaps just how Christians interpreted Christianity?

No I think it goes all the way back to Paul and Nietzsche's conviction that Paul perverted Jesus' message and built a religion around it...a religion for the weak and oppressed...Paul being one of those in Nietzsche's mind...a religion where the "strong" are condemned and the "weak" are lifted up.

[Der Übermensch]

...a veneration of slave morality...

[Iskandar]

that he had a single idea at any point in his life that has any kind of merit or accuracy
yep that's the oneWell, you're a Marxist.

[Der Übermensch]

I would think you'd identify with a guy who enjoyed going on about all the stuff he hated...

[Dave de Sylvia]

Yeah but Tway is more entertaining.

[Danish]

I don't think I really need to bother speaking up about my appreciation and general defense of Nietzschean philosophy?

How does anarchism work with Nietzschean philosophy? I'm seriously interested, not being snarky or something.

[croniun]

I don't see how it would...seeing as he was very critical of anarchists. But maybe Das can give a better answer.

[Iskandar]

I would think you'd identify with a guy who enjoyed going on about all the stuff he hated...You talkin' to Tway?

[Reaganista]

Well, you're a Marxist
wat u talkin bout

I would think you'd identify with a guy who enjoyed going on about all the stuff he hated...
what he hated was stupid
and so were his other ideas

[croniun]

what he hated was stupid
and so were his other ideas

What did he hate and why and what were his other ideas.

[Reaganista]

im not doing your ****ing homework for you

will to power, slave morality, ubermensch, recurrence, it's all ****ing idiotic

[croniun]

Brilliant. You really blew me away with your in-depth Wikipedia knowledge on Nietzsche.

[Der Übermensch]

How does anarchism work with Nietzschean philosophy? I'm seriously interested, not being snarky or something.
I don't see how it would...seeing as he was very critical of anarchists. But maybe Das can give a better answer
He isn't at all compatable with communally based Anarchism - Left Anarchism (or Right anarchism for that matter), but I'm primarily an Individualist (Mutualism ftw), and as I 'subscribe' to a somewhat humanist, if still cynical, interpretation (ie I like Kaufmann) of Nietzsche's work, his veneration of the individual is generally inline with my own outlook. Max Stirner, all but the founder of the Individualist Anarchism (Egoism as he called it) school, was one of Nietzsche's most respected writers...

I'll try to type up a more in depth thing when I have the time if you want.

[deathscreamingsheep]

Personally, I think the categories are somewhat arbitrary or misinformed. For example, I would say that neoconservatism and neoliberalism are not very similar at all, mainly for reasons you pointed out.

This is a couple of pages back, but what do you think of Douglas Murray's description of Neoconservatism? Actually, I think Neoconservatism: Why We Need It should be added to the list anyway. I realise that the tagline assigned to him as the "right-wing Michael Moore" hardly gives a good impression of the man, nor did his appearance on recent BBC shows with Davina McCall.

However, his book in a detailed but concise outlines a political ideology. Also, he's actually pretty damn intelligent.

[Reaganista]

Brilliant. You really blew me away with your in-depth Wikipedia knowledge on Nietzsche.lol like i have anything to prove to you

[croniun]

I'll try to type up a more in depth thing when I have the time if you want.

Fine by me. :p

Have you read the Birth of Tragedy?

[Mr. Ron]

I've only read "Thus spoke zarathustra" so far.

[croniun]

That was the first book I read from him...after reading his other books though I appreciated (and understood =/) Zarathustra much more.

[Der Übermensch]

That was the first book I read from him...after reading his other books though I appreciated (and understood =/) Zarathustra much more.
Very much the same. I didn't like it at all the first time, but after reading his less narrative works, the power of it became much more apparent :)

And for the Birth of Tragedy, I've only read excerpts. It's one of the few major works I havn't read in full I guess...

[croniun]

It's strange reading the Nietzsche that wrote the Birth of Tragedy and the Nietzsche that wrote the Anti-Christ. Definitely changed over the years...he was actually pretty critical of the BoT later in life.

Regardless, I like what he has to say about music but I guess that's getting a bit off-topic.

[Mr. Ron]

That was the first book I read from him...after reading his other books though I appreciated (and understood =/) Zarathustra much more.

Yeah, on some pages I had to read them over a few times to even begin to grasp what he was trying to say. I loved the part when he was carrying the dead body on his back.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

im not doing your ****ing homework for you

will to power, slave morality, ubermensch, recurrence, it's all ****ing idiotic

I disagree, but good analysis there :rolleyes:.

what he hated was stupid
and so were his other ideas

I personally find it easy to agree with his dislike of mediocrity and homogeny. To refer to Beyond Good and Evil, which is the only of his actual books (as opposed to ones about him and his works), the best bits are when he is analysing and being critical of other philosophers, people, society, and the world in general. Where I start to disagree with him more is where he branches off into some of his stranger ideas, such as his apparent Lamarckism in places. That said, some of his ideas are quite appealing.


Either way, there is no way that reading any of his books, let alone Beyond Good and Evil, would give one a grounding in fascism (which is what the list seems to suggest). Perhaps he introduces some of the ideas behind it, but that is not the same. Did Mussolini write anything? If so that would surely be good for this purpose. The problem with Hitler's book in terms of introducing one to fascism would be, as far as I know, that it does not go into the specifics of how the fascist state/government works but rather what his underlying ideas were (I don't think he went in for describing anything relating closely to civil liberties/freedoms, values, economics, etc, which characterise most ideologies but I suppose perhaps fascism is not like most ideologies for precisely that reason), although I suppose a lot of ideological texts are similar in that way.

[Der Übermensch]

Did Mussolini write anything?
He wrote some racy pulp novels in his pre-Duce years...

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

He wrote some racy pulp novels in his pre-Duce years...

No, those racy novels were his political philosophy. Really, it's all been a mistake; he wasn't a fascist, everyone just misinterpreted what he said and in reality he was just a poor Italian boy who wanted a little bit of lovin :naughty: :p

[Reaganista]

mussolini was a newspaper editor he wrote tons

the only thing anybody reads anymore is his entry in the italian encyclopedia where he explained what fascism is

I personally find it easy to agree with his dislike of mediocrity and homogeny.
self loathing isn't healthy

To refer to Beyond Good and Evil, which is the only of his actual books (as opposed to ones about him and his works), the best bits are when he is analysing and being critical of other philosophers, people, society, and the world in general. Where I start to disagree with him more is where he branches off into some of his stranger ideas, such as his apparent Lamarckism in places. That said, some of his ideas are quite appealing.
lol apparent lamarkism
that's quite the strong critque
and no none of his ideas are appealing


Either way, there is no way that reading any of his books, let alone Beyond Good and Evil, would give one a grounding in fascism (which is what the list seems to suggest). Perhaps he introduces some of the ideas behind it, but that is not the same. Did Mussolini write anything? If so that would surely be good for this purpose. The problem with Hitler's book in terms of introducing one to fascism would be, as far as I know, that it does not go into the specifics of how the fascist state/government works but rather what his underlying ideas were (I don't think he went in for describing anything relating closely to civil liberties/freedoms, values, economics, etc, which characterise most ideologies but I suppose perhaps fascism is not like most ideologies for precisely that reason), although I suppose a lot of ideological texts are similar in that way.
i disagree will to power, slave morality and ubermensch were all steps in forming the idea that a super-human leader will inevitable rise from the masses to remake society and command them to greatness
which is sort of a cornerstone of fascism

[Smokey D]

If you want to understand how fascism worked as a historical phenomenon, it's better to read a history book than a piece of political writing. All fascist states functioned pretty differently to how they were meant to if you believed the propaganda.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

lol reagan.

Your criticism: "will to power, slave morality, ubermensch, recurrence, it's all ****ing idiotic"

Mine: "He seems to promote Lamarckism", which is a theory which has pretty much been disproved. Besides, I was giving a brief example; there is no way I could throroughly evaluate every aspect of everything he said (not least as it doesn't all hook up too well, or at least not obviously).

Also, Nietzsche was openly against racial supremacy, and thought it was idiotic. Really, he was more about what you were like than the colour of you skin or eyes, or where you were born, or who to.

"will to power, slave morality and ubermensch were all steps in forming the idea that a super-human leader will inevitable rise from the masses to remake society and command them to greatness
which is sort of a cornerstone of fascism"

I think remaking society to make it better is a cornerstone of most ideologies and political theories tbh. Fascists definitely drew on his ideas, but that neither makes him a fascist nor does it make his works a good way of finding out about fascism.

[croniun]

i disagree will to power, slave morality and ubermensch were all steps in forming the idea that a super-human leader will inevitable rise from the masses to remake society and command them to greatness
which is sort of a cornerstone of fascism

I'd say his overman concept was more of a self-overcoming idea, not an outward overcoming, conquering, and commanding of society idea.

1) Realizing/knowing there is no god
2) Struggling with nihilism
3) Overcoming nihilism
4) Forming your own values and finding happiness in them rather then being enslaved to set systems of traditional morality.

Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus" is a great illustration of this.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

I'd say his overman concept was more of a self-overcoming idea, not an outward overcoming, conquering, and commanding of society idea.

1) Realizing/knowing there is no god
2) Struggling with nihilism
3) Overcoming nihilism
4) Forming your own values and finding happiness in them rather then being enslaved to set systems of traditional morality.

Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus" is a great illustration of this.

You managed to say what I wanted to, but in concise and understandable form :p. I'm not sure if I'd be totally correct to say this, but from the Nietzsche, Sartre and Camus I have read I would say that existentialism has a great debt to Nietzsche. Maybe N. was even a proto-existentialist type figure? I mean obviously Kirkegaard but I see a lot of similarities with Nietzsche in later existentialists too.

[Der Übermensch]

Sarte founded Existentialism, but he said that the true debt was with Freddy and Kirkesgaard.

[Reaganista]

If you want to understand how fascism worked as a historical phenomenon, it's better to read a history book than a piece of political writing. All fascist states functioned pretty differently to how they were meant to if you believed the propaganda.
good thing i was talking about how fascism as an ideology was born

Your criticism: "will to power, slave morality, ubermensch, recurrence, it's all ****ing idiotic"

Mine: "He seems to promote Lamarckism", which is a theory which has pretty much been disproved. Besides, I was giving a brief example; there is no way I could throroughly evaluate every aspect of everything he said (not least as it doesn't all hook up too well, or at least not obviously).

my point was that your critique of 'apparent lamarkism' wasn't a critique at all you were just giving a token show of derision to something that's really tangental to his main points

Also, Nietzsche was openly against racial supremacy, and thought it was idiotic. Really, he was more about what you were like than the colour of you skin or eyes, or where you were born, or who to.

and he hated jews but that's neither here nor there because there's nothing inherently racist about fascist ideology


"will to power, slave morality and ubermensch were all steps in forming the idea that a super-human leader will inevitable rise from the masses to remake society and command them to greatness
which is sort of a cornerstone of fascism"

I think remaking society to make it better is a cornerstone of most ideologies and political theories tbh.
i cant think of any other ideology that says a super-human leader will inevitably rise from the masses to remake society and command them to greatness

I'd say his overman concept was more of a self-overcoming idea, not an outward overcoming, conquering, and commanding of society idea.

1) Realizing/knowing there is no god
2) Struggling with nihilism
3) Overcoming nihilism
4) Forming your own values and finding happiness in them rather then being enslaved to set systems of traditional morality.

Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus" is a great illustration of this.
none of this has any bearing on anything ive said

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

my point was that your critique of 'apparent lamarkism' wasn't a critique at all you were just giving a token show of derision to something that's really tangental to his main points

I know, it wasn't really supposed be a critique, like I've already pointed out, I was briefly exemplifying my point of some aspects of his philosophy being a bit sketchy. So yes, it was a token show of derision if that's what you want to call it, but I don't believe I pretended it was anything more; if i did then i apologise for the misunderstanding, but what does it matter?


and he hated jews but that's neither here nor there because there's nothing inherently racist about fascist ideology


Well he didn't hate jews... where did you get that from!? Although true there is nothing inherently racist about a fascist ideology. Or is there? I have never read a book that is a definitive statement of fascist ideology (hence this discussion tbh) so I'm not really sure. Is fascism really a coherent ideology as such, or more of a descriptive term?? I am beginning to suspect that it is more of the latter.

[Der Übermensch]

and he hated jews but that's neither here nor there because there's nothing inherently racist about fascist ideology


No more than anyone else, and he liked them more than he liked Christians.
I quote, "The Jews are the strangest people in world history because, confronted with the quetion whether to be or not to be, the chose, with perfectly uncanny deliberation, to be at any price." Seem's rather praiseful if you ask me...

none of this has any bearing on anything ive said
Um... it is the rebuttal to what you said just before it ["i cant think of any other ideology that says a super-human leader will inevitably rise from the masses to remake society and command them to greatness"]...

[Reaganista]

I know, it wasn't really supposed be a critique, like I've already pointed out, I was briefly exemplifying my point of some aspects of his philosophy being a bit sketchy. So yes, it was a token show of derision if that's what you want to call it, but I don't believe I pretended it was anything more; if i did then i apologise for the misunderstanding, but what does it matter?

if that's the case then there was no reason to even post it

Well he didn't hate jews... where did you get that from!?
various articles about how much he hated jews
look here's one
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/obj-studies/cyber/MCpt3sum.asp

Although true there is nothing inherently racist about a fascist ideology. Or is there? I have never read a book that is a definitive statement of fascist ideology (hence this discussion tbh) so I'm not really sure. Is fascism really a coherent ideology as such, or more of a descriptive term?? I am beginning to suspect that it is more of the latter.
ideologically fascism is as coherent as mussolini could write it
which is to say somewhat
nietzsche isnt coherent either he was always contradicting himself

No more than anyone else, and he liked them more than he liked Christians.

hay guess what also hating christians doesnt mean you dont hate jews

I quote, "The Jews are the strangest people in world history because, confronted with the quetion whether to be or not to be, the chose, with perfectly uncanny deliberation, to be at any price." Seem's rather praiseful if you ask me...
o wow a single quote from nietzsche what could be more useless

[Der Übermensch]

various articles about how much he hated jews
look here's one
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/obj-studies/cyber/MCpt3sum.asp
You use Objectivism to support your case? Ayn Rand is an idiot, and makes Freddy look like a rather friendly guy.


nietzsche isnt coherent either he was always contradicting himself
Which he thouroughly admitted. Much of his later work has explicit apologies for his stuff before the break with Wagner.


hay guess what also hating christians doesnt mean you dont hate jews
No... but it means he didn't hate Jew's out of any anti-semetic feelings, which is what I feel you are implying... He hated them in the same way he hated any religious group.

o wow a single quote from nietzsche what could be more useless
Well, I'm not gonna go post the whole ****ing book...

[croniun]

and he hated jews

You sure about that?

"In the Jewish 'Old Testament,' the book of divine justice, there are human beings, things, and speeches in so grand a style that Greek and Indian literature have nothing to compare with it. With terror and reverence one stands before these tremendous remnants of what man once was, and will have sad thoughts about ancient Asia and its protruding little peninsula Europe." BGE 52

"Greeks...the French...Jews, Romans...People tormented and enchanted by unknown fevers and irresistibly pressed beyond themselves, in love and lusting after foreign races, and at the same time domineering like all that knows itself to be full of creative power." BGE 248

"The Jews are beyond any doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race now living in Europe; they know how to prevail even under the worst conditions." BGE 251

"It might be useful and fair to expel the anti-Semitic screamers from the country." BGE 251

none of this has any bearing on anything ive said

Yes it does. The overman is not some militaristic, philosopher politician of the future whose going to overthrow democracy and install a fascist state. Even though I think it's obvious that Nietzsche would prefer an aristocratic society, you've simply missed the whole point of the "overman."

Example: Nietzsche respects the history of Viking society; brutal, undemocratic, ruthless, etc. Yet at the same time he admits that such men were animals and simply put, dumb. He would hardly call any of them "overmen."

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

Nietzche started thought ideas of racial supremacy were stupid, and that was one of his reasons for breaking up with Wagner.

[Reaganista]

You use Objectivism to support your case? Ayn Rand is an idiot, and makes Freddy look like a rather friendly guy.

ad hominem
Which he thouroughly admitted. Much of his later work has explicit apologies for his stuff before the break with Wagner.

doesn't matter he still published it it's his fault

No... but it means he didn't hate Jew's out of any anti-semetic feelings, which is what I feel you are implying... He hated them in the same way he hated any religious group.
no he hated them in the way he hated jews and for specifically jewish reasons
that he also hated christians for christian reasons does nothing to excuse this

Well, I'm not gonna go post the whole ****ing book...
wouldnt matter either way

You sure about that?
yes

Yes it does. The overman is not some militaristic, philosopher politician of the future whose going to overthrow democracy and install a fascist state. Even though I think it's obvious that Nietzsche would prefer an aristocratic society, you've simply missed the whole point of the "overman."

me missing the point really has no bearing on anything i said either

nietzsche doesnt have to give a self styled ubermensch a detailed list of instructions for it to be obvious what he is to do both to and for the rest of the slaves

[Smokey D]

good thing i was talking about how fascism as an ideology was born

I was talking to Ollie, coz he asked what political works he should read to understand the workings of fascism.

[Reaganista]

o rite
europe between the wars by kitchen is good if you want a broader context otherwise you could just read a mussolini biography i guess

[croniun]

various articles about how much he hated jews
look here's one
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/obj-studies/cyber/MCpt3sum.asp

"In another place, Nietzsche writes that Jewish scholars support logic because logic "makes no distinction between crooked and straight noses.
(TGS, 348)"

Ahaha I love how this passage is completely taken out of context. The whole second half of this section is Nietzsche explaining how Jews always win whenever they encounter race and class prejudice because of their high regard for logic. Society may "make distinctions between crooked and straight noses" but logic does not which is why the Jews have always had the upper hand in the end.

The very next statement in that passage:

"Incidentally, Europe owes Jews no small thanks for making people think more logically and for establishing cleanlier intellectual habits...Wherever Jews have won influence they have taught men to make finer distinctions, more rigorous inferences, and to write in a more luminous and cleanly fashion; their task was ever to bring a people 'to listen to reason.'" TGS 348

[Mr. Ron]

hey look tway is wrong again

[totah]

Jews rock amirite?

I'm reading The Plot Against America right now. It's interesting. It's the story of how Lindbergh won the 1940 elections over Roosevelt and took America forward towards classical fascism (as opposed to the fascism of capital =P), told from the point of view of a ten year old boy.

[Reaganista]

"In another place, Nietzsche writes that Jewish scholars support logic because logic "makes no distinction between crooked and straight noses.
(TGS, 348)"

Ahaha I love how this passage is completely taken out of context. The whole second half of this section is Nietzsche explaining how Jews always win whenever they encounter race and class prejudice because of their high regard for logic. Society may "make distinctions between crooked and straight noses" but logic does not which is why the Jews have always had the upper hand in the end.

The very next statement in that passage:

"Incidentally, Europe owes Jews no small thanks for making people think more logically and for establishing cleanlier intellectual habits...Wherever Jews have won influence they have taught men to make finer distinctions, more rigorous inferences, and to write in a more luminous and cleanly fashion; their task was ever to bring a people 'to listen to reason.'" TGS 348
i dont see your point
the idea that jews had pervasive influence in society was central to his 'slave' paranoia

btw http://www.friesian.com/nietzsch.htm

[peeted]

Nietzsche disapproved of judeo christian morality, that doesn't make him anti semitic, he fell out with his sister and mocked her for being an anti Semite, one of his last letters was "death to bismarck and the anti-Semites" and he was openly friends with many Zionists and approved of the Zionist movement. Even the Nuremberg trials accepted that he was in no way responsible for acts of fascism or antisemitism.

[Reaganista]

i dont give a **** what he did when he was in adult diapers
that doesn't excuse or change what he did when he was younger
we've already acknowledged that he constantly contradicted himself

btw http://www.friesian.com/nietzsch.htm

[peeted]

There's only one thing worse than out of context Nietzsche quotes and that's the people who quote him out of context.

[Reaganista]

actually he has context for his quotes but i guess you could try to provide your own context if had a leg to stand on

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

I wouldn't try and reason with this guy, doesn't seem to make much headway. i.e. dismissing every direct criticism and refutation of what he has said as irrelevent to his point, i.e. his point being wrong is irrelevent to his point. :| Also, his continual reference to outside sources without explanation is annoying me. e.g. I am right, it says so in this article [link]. Just explain what it says in the article, or use parts of it to construct an argument or position; that is how you debate.That's the way it seems to me.
If you read Nietzsche it's pretty obvious where he stands on this, to both me and most other people apparently.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

For example:

actually he has context for his quotes [For example - ? Evidence to support statement? Which particular quotes? Is it the correct context? etc] but i guess you could try to provide your own context [Several posters before you have actually put quotes in a wider and more accurate context so this point is null] if had a leg to stand on [Reaches conclusion of argument being incorrect or unbased without providing any criticism/analysis]

Other general points:

-focuses on one specific narrow thing to oppose ignoring the wider argument put against him so as to deflect attention away from their force.

[Reaganista]

[For example - ? Evidence to support statement? Which particular quotes? Is it the correct context? etc]
read the article you ****ing nitwit

[Several posters before you have actually put quotes in a wider and more accurate context so this point is null]
no no one has done anything like that they've taken pieces of his argument against judiasm and framed it in ways that makes it look like he's making pro-jewish conclusions when really it's just part of his longer argument that jews are bad or evil
you would know this if you read the article
or anything else omglol
[Reaches conclusion of argument being incorrect or unbased without providing any criticism/analysis]
i wasnt arguing i was correcting you

-focuses on one specific narrow thing to oppose ignoring the wider argument put against him so as to deflect attention away from their force.
except i havent

[croniun]

read the article you ****ing nitwit

He doesn't have to. We're providing are own arguments. We're providing quotes based off of what WE have read. You're just slapping down some article you read and saying "see this proves me right and you wrong." Not how it works.

And big deal if he contradicted himself. He was a human being whose major works span over a period of around 20 years. People change. Why the heck is he any different?

[Reaganista]

He doesn't have to. We're providing are own arguments. We're providing quotes based off of what WE have read. You're just slapping down some article you read and saying "see this proves me right and you wrong." Not how it works.
yes it is
especially when you're complete unable to rebutt the argument
And big deal if he contradicted himself. He was a human being whose major works span over a period of around 20 years. People change. Why the heck is he any different?
i agree that he contradicted himself

[croniun]

yes it is
especially when you're complete unable to rebutt the argument

i agree that he contradicted himself

I'm not taking the time to read or respond to an article that you googled because you haven't read Niezsche yourself. I could easily post a dozen articles arguing for Nietzsche's disgust for anti-Semitism and you definitely wouldn't respond to them and I wouldn't expect you to.

If YOU have actually read Nietzsche, you should be able to make an argument yourself rather then depending on some person's article that you googled.

[Reaganista]

http://www.friesian.com/nietzsch.htm

[MAthiAS]

Is it worth reading Marx's The Grundrisse or should I just spend that time on Capital and other things?

[guitrguy]

I suggest for politics

American Fascist - Chris Hedges

And for religion

The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

[Iskandar]

Is it worth reading Marx's The Grundrisse or should I just spend that time on Capital and other things?Probably not worth it.

If you must embark on the beast that is Capital, only read the first part. The rest is just a dissertation on the finer points of it.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

i haven't read Capital, but I thought you didn't really have to read it, or at atleast not before you know something about Marx.

[Iskandar]

i haven't read Capital, but I thought you didn't really have to read it, or at atleast not before you know something about Marx.It's not essential reading or anything, but it'd be very useful for an in-depth (if very boring) analysis.

[lfantwister]

So have any of you read "What is to be done?"

the book that supposedly inspired a generation of revolutionaries. I read like the first 5 pages and it sucked. Was wondering if it got any better?

[MAthiAS]

Probably not worth it.

If you must embark on the beast that is Capital, only read the first part. The rest is just a dissertation on the finer points of it.
When you say first part I assume you mean Commodities and Money, not Volume I, correct?

[Iskandar]

So have any of you read "What is to be done?"

the book that supposedly inspired a generation of revolutionaries. I read like the first 5 pages and it sucked. Was wondering if it got any better?I'm not interested in the rantings of a totalitarian lunatic, so I haven't read it.


When you say first part I assume you mean Commodities and Money, not Volume I, correct?No, I mean Volume I.:) That's the only volume worth reading unless you're really, really interested in the subject.

[MAthiAS]

Okay cool, thanks for the advice.

[Danish]

Is it worth reading Marx's The Grundrisse or should I just spend that time on Capital and other things?

It's definitely worth reading. Marx's theory is surprisingly broad. If you're just getting into Marx, I'd try to get a compilation reader or something like that.

[lfantwister]

I'm not interested in the rantings of a totalitarian lunatic, so I haven't read it.

but it was so influential. I feel like i have to read it to understand that part of history almost

[Reaganista]

I'm not interested in the rantings of a totalitarian lunatic

ya reductionism is easier

[MAthiAS]

It's definitely worth reading. Marx's theory is surprisingly broad. If you're just getting into Marx, I'd try to get a compilation reader or something like that.
Yeah I picked up a used copy of The Marx-Engels Reader a couple weeks back and am making my way through it.

[Iskandar]

but it was so influential. I feel like i have to read it to understand that part of history almostPerhaps. It couldn't hurt to read it any more than, say, Mein Kampf, which is still widely read.
Yeah I picked up a used copy of The Marx-Engels Reader a couple weeks back and am making my way through it.That'd be very useful. The problem is that Marx wrote a lot that he never finished or put in systematic order. So a guide would help in navigating it all.