Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[United Muscovite Nations]

I'm not so sure. Authoritarianism, Totalitarianism, and other terms have almost always been used as bywords for "use of authority that I don't agree with" rather than any concrete definition.

I define authoritarianism as hegemony or oligarchy.

Hegemony in terms of Gramsci's idea of it?

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

Hegemony in terms of Gramsci's idea of it?

My views are somewhat influenced by neo-Gramscianism. However, I simply define hegemony as as any practice which works against communism and emancipation.

[Northern Davincia]

Our definitions of authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism are not the same. I define authoritarianism as right-wing imperialism, capitalism, and hegemony. I define anti-authoritarianism as anti-imperialism, communism and emancipation from capitalism.

What's wrong with imperialism when it is used to eliminate inferior cultural practices?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Our definitions of authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism are not the same. I define authoritarianism as right-wing imperialism, capitalism, and hegemony. I define anti-authoritarianism as anti-imperialism, communism and emancipation from capitalism.

What's wrong with imperialism when it is used to eliminate inferior cultural practices?

It's always interesting to see libertarians argue for the use of force to violate the rights of other countries.

[Northern Davincia]

What's wrong with imperialism when it is used to eliminate inferior cultural practices?

It's always interesting to see libertarians argue for the use of force to violate the rights of other countries.

Force is only justified when used defensively, of course. But I cannot help but admit that I am glad to see widow-burning and foot-binding abolished.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

What's wrong with imperialism when it is used to eliminate inferior cultural practices?

Who gets to decide interior cultural practices? The American Empire has been doing that since the late 1940s. In the process, West Asia (the Middle East) has been destabilized.

[Northern Davincia]

What's wrong with imperialism when it is used to eliminate inferior cultural practices?

Who gets to decide interior cultural practices? The American Empire has been doing that since the late 1940s. In the process, West Asia (the Middle East) has been destabilized.

It was destabilized to get more oil, not to bring superior cultural values to barbarians. The deciding factor is the harm that a cultural practice brings upon the individual.

[War Gears]

Well than that's just a super obvious double-standard and you're misusing the word authoritarian.

I'm not so sure. Authoritarianism, Totalitarianism, and other terms have almost always been used as bywords for "use of authority that I don't agree with" rather than any concrete definition.

Not really. "Totalitarianism" and "authoritarianism" have been used by sociologists for decades. The Soviet Union and Fascist countries are pretty much textbook definitions of totalitarianism, for instance. Fascists even embraced the word positively.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Who gets to decide interior cultural practices? The American Empire has been doing that since the late 1940s. In the process, West Asia (the Middle East) has been destabilized.

It was destabilized to get more oil, not to bring superior cultural values to barbarians. The deciding factor is the harm that a cultural practice brings upon the individual.

Does it matter why it was destabilized? It was destabilized nonetheless. Whether Iraq endured nearly 15 years of civil war over oil or female genital mutilation (which is common in some parts of Iraq, especially Iraqi Kurdistan), it still wasn't worth it.

Moreover, there's a lot of cultural practices in this country that are quite harmful to the individual.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I'm not so sure. Authoritarianism, Totalitarianism, and other terms have almost always been used as bywords for "use of authority that I don't agree with" rather than any concrete definition.

Not really. "Totalitarianism" and "authoritarianism" have been used by sociologists for decades. The Soviet Union and Fascist countries are pretty much textbook definitions of totalitarianism, for instance. Fascists even embraced the word positively.

There's also a lot of criticism of their use in the academic setting, particularly of the former term. Many argue that the term totalitarianism has restricted our understanding of the inner-workings of such states in favor of viewing them as unsophisticated monoliths.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

It was destabilized to get more oil, not to bring superior cultural values to barbarians. The deciding factor is the harm that a cultural practice brings upon the individual.

I think that is overly simplistic. Oil was certainly a factor in some cases. Geopolitics, however, is much more complex.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Not really. "Totalitarianism" and "authoritarianism" have been used by sociologists for decades. The Soviet Union and Fascist countries are pretty much textbook definitions of totalitarianism, for instance. Fascists even embraced the word positively.

I am a sociologist of religion and a social theorist, not a political sociologist. However, I know enough political sociology to be able to say that totalitarianism is rarely used these days (and for good reasons).

[War Gears]

Not really. "Totalitarianism" and "authoritarianism" have been used by sociologists for decades. The Soviet Union and Fascist countries are pretty much textbook definitions of totalitarianism, for instance. Fascists even embraced the word positively.

There's also a lot of criticism of their use in the academic setting, particularly of the former term. Many argue that the term totalitarianism has restricted our understanding of the inner-workings of such states in favor of viewing them as unsophisticated monoliths.

I'm not inclined to agree; the totalitarianism/authoritarian distinction has been extremely useful in understanding regimes and ideologies, and it pinpoints an important connection between Fascism and Bolshevism which is normally left unexplored.

[Northern Davincia]

It was destabilized to get more oil, not to bring superior cultural values to barbarians. The deciding factor is the harm that a cultural practice brings upon the individual.

Does it matter why it was destabilized? It was destabilized nonetheless. Whether Iraq endured nearly 15 years of civil war over oil or female genital mutilation (which is common in some parts of Iraq, especially Iraqi Kurdistan), it still wasn't worth it.

Moreover, there's a lot of cultural practices in this country that are quite harmful to the individual.

I can't say I'm all too pleased about the Iraq War in any case. The occupations of the Philippines had better moral justification.

[Genivaria]

What's wrong with imperialism when it is used to eliminate inferior cultural practices?

Who gets to decide interior cultural practices? The American Empire has been doing that since the late 1940s. In the process, West Asia (the Middle East) has been destabilized.

Uh I think you MEAN to refer to the British and French dividing up Africa and the MIddle East (the latter after WW1) but hey it always has to be America's fault right?

[Democratic Communist Federation]

I'm not inclined to agree; the totalitarianism/authoritarian distinction has been extremely useful in understanding regimes and ideologies, and it pinpoints an important connection between Fascism and Bolshevism which is normally left unexplored.

Which contemporary scholars make that totalitarian-authoritarian distinction?

[United Muscovite Nations]

There's also a lot of criticism of their use in the academic setting, particularly of the former term. Many argue that the term totalitarianism has restricted our understanding of the inner-workings of such states in favor of viewing them as unsophisticated monoliths.

I'm not inclined to agree; the totalitarianism/authoritarian distinction has been extremely useful in understanding regimes and ideologies, and it pinpoints an important connection between Fascism and Bolshevism which is normally left unexplored.

I don't agree. The distinction has caused us to not view the states in question as complex institutions made up by complex people, and, instead, as unfeeling behemoths. I also disagree on the level of connection between Fascism and Bolshevism. They certainly have a common ancestor, but they evolved in very different ways with very different ideological justifications and goals.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Uh I think you MEAN to refer to the British and French dividing up Africa and the MIddle East (the latter after WW1) but hey it always has to be America's fault right?

After World War II, primarily, yes.

[Sanctissima]

Does it matter why it was destabilized? It was destabilized nonetheless. Whether Iraq endured nearly 15 years of civil war over oil or female genital mutilation (which is common in some parts of Iraq, especially Iraqi Kurdistan), it still wasn't worth it.

Moreover, there's a lot of cultural practices in this country that are quite harmful to the individual.

I can't say I'm all too pleased about the Iraq War in any case. The occupations of the Philippines had better moral justification.

Does the moral justification for a war really matter beyond mundane sentimentality?

There's a case to be made for the morality of actions taken during a war, but in terms of the declaration of war itself, I don't believe the moral argument is really relevant. Or at least, it ought not to be. The foreign policy of a state, especially in military matters, should be self-interested; not obliquely concerned with the moral justification for its actions.

[Genivaria]

Uh I think you MEAN to refer to the British and French dividing up Africa and the MIddle East (the latter after WW1) but hey it always has to be America's fault right?

After World War II, primarily, yes.

The comment about "widow-burning and foot-binding" being abolished had nothing to do with the US, so your rant is pretty strange.
Thank the British Empire, a proper Empire that put their flag on everyone else's flag.

[War Gears]

I'm not inclined to agree; the totalitarianism/authoritarian distinction has been extremely useful in understanding regimes and ideologies, and it pinpoints an important connection between Fascism and Bolshevism which is normally left unexplored.

I don't agree. The distinction has caused us to not view the states in question as complex institutions made up by complex people, and, instead, as unfeeling behemoths. I also disagree on the level of connection between Fascism and Bolshevism. They certainly have a common ancestor, but they evolved in very different ways with very different ideological justifications and goals.

They fundamentally shared common ideological justifications and goals. Both were motivated by a belief that their countries were backwards and semi-feudal and needed a powerful state in order to modernize. Both wanted this powerful state to create a New Man who would embody the values of the regime. In theory and practice, Fascist Italy and the Soviet Union were much more similar than say, Fascist Italy and Salazar's Portugal.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I don't agree. The distinction has caused us to not view the states in question as complex institutions made up by complex people, and, instead, as unfeeling behemoths. I also disagree on the level of connection between Fascism and Bolshevism. They certainly have a common ancestor, but they evolved in very different ways with very different ideological justifications and goals.

They fundamentally shared common ideological justifications and goals. Both were motivated by a belief that their countries were backwards and semi-feudal and needed a powerful state in order to modernize. Both wanted this powerful state to create a New Man who would embody the values of the regime. In theory and practice, Fascist Italy and the Soviet Union were much more similar than say, Fascist Italy and Salazar's Portugal.

Their fundamental goals were different though. The Soviet state's ultimate goal was its own dissolution and to spread its ideology throughout the entire world to end history. The Fascists wanted to revive national glory. The Soviets, moreover, didn't romanticize the past of their country, and never embraced palingenetic ultranationalism. The Soviet justification for hardcore industrialization was indeed that they were backward, but the goal of industrialization was to prevent the revolution being crushed, not to strengthen Russia as a nation.

[Genivaria]

I can't say I'm all too pleased about the Iraq War in any case. The occupations of the Philippines had better moral justification.

Does the moral justification for a war really matter beyond mundane sentimentality?

There's a case to be made for the morality of actions taken during a war, but in terms of the declaration of war itself, I don't believe the moral argument is really relevant. Or at least, it ought not to be. The foreign policy of a state, especially in military matters, should be self-interested; not obliquely concerned with the moral justification for its actions.

So you'd prefer if the state said:
"We're invading you because you have resources that we need, nothing personal, but we'll treat you REALLY nicely pinky promise!" ?

[Sanctissima]

Does the moral justification for a war really matter beyond mundane sentimentality?

There's a case to be made for the morality of actions taken during a war, but in terms of the declaration of war itself, I don't believe the moral argument is really relevant. Or at least, it ought not to be. The foreign policy of a state, especially in military matters, should be self-interested; not obliquely concerned with the moral justification for its actions.

So you'd prefer if the state said:
"We're invading you because you have resources that we need, nothing personal, but we'll treat you REALLY nicely pinky promise!" ?

Actually, that's... exactly what I want.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

The comment about "widow-burning and foot-binding" being abolished had nothing to do with the US, so your rant is pretty strange.
Thank the British Empire, a proper Empire that put their flag on everyone else's flag.

Since I never made that comment about burning widows and binding feet, I cannot respond. However, if you ask any member of the British Parliament or the Royal Family, they will tell you that the UK does not breathe (metaphorically) without asking the DoD for permission.