LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I don't think we can be quite that general. Elements of authoritarianism cannot really be avoided in times of profound socio-economic reorganisation, for example.

"Pure" libertarianism also risks degenerating the ability to maintain order and civility in debate. Respect for hierarchies and institutions is eroded - every man thinks he knows best, no-one has the right to rule over him, running off his mouth in obnoxious ways is virtuous self-expressive behaviour. Politics becomes a hollowed-out pantomime and the idea of democracy becomes less a commitment to a set of institutions and a shared history and more just one of many options to pick off the ideological shelves, one whose operation is widely mocked and discredited.

The paradox of libertarianism is that it empowers political and social forces that seek the overthrow of the liberal order.

"I don't think we can be quite that general. Elements of authoritarianism cannot really be avoided in times of profound socio-economic reorganisation, for example."

That may be true, but even then, an attempt should be made to avoid it.

Libertarianism does permit disorder and civility in debate, but there is a difference between permitting something and encouraging it. You might look at today's state of debate and understand it to be a disaster, but I cannot think of anything that would really fix it, with or without authoritarian measures being taken to curb disorder and incivility. And as long as at least two people who disagree can have a meaningful respectful discussion, I believe those two will rise to the top. Unjust hierarchies and flawed institutions should not be given blind reverence and should be criticized. Most people think they know best because, legally they do, they have the final say in their lives. Doesn't mean what they do is a good idea, but they do have sovereignty over their lives, and no one does have the right to rule over them.

I wouldn't call democracy a committment to institutions or a shared history, I identify it as the manifestation of the person's right to not be taxed without representation. I don't believe that libertarianism would result in the majority of people no longer supporting democracy, even if it did, there would be checks and balances in place to ensure that democracy and other fundamental rights are not abolished.

Libertarianism doesn't empower forces that oppose it, it merely permits them. As it should, extremes, even those fundamentally opposed to the current order are necessary for discourse. At any rate, I would rather live in a liberal democracy with free speech in which the majority of people oppose liberalism, than in a liberal state where most people are satisfied with liberalism, but the people who aren't are censored and disenfranchised.

It should also be noted that I don't support "pure" libertarianism, I don't want to abolish welfare, taxes, public healthcare, police, the state, drivers licences, etc, and I think a moderate, incrementalist approach to one's political goals is generally best for everyone. I was probably to quick to react when Western Vale spoke positively of certain degrees of authoritarianism, and I do tend to get triggered when people speak positively of authoritarianism, and that is on me.

I disagree. I don't share your faith in people, the resilience of both civility and traditional checks and balances in a world of hyperindividualism, and our socio-economic priorities are of course also different. That said, I am glad to learn that you are not a purist or a zealot. You do argue your case well and if I saw reflective and intelligent discourse of this kind at the forefront more widely I might be more sympathetic to the perspective.

[West Leas Oros 2]

My political beliefs on the so called “libertarian-authoritarian” axis is generally centrist, but leaning more towards libertarian. As of lately however, I’ve begun seeing the need for a strong, but not necessarily authoritarian, leadership. I’ve begun thinking about how a more decentralized version of a proletarian state could be implemented. A sort of “federal communism”, I suppose.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

My political beliefs on the so called “libertarian-authoritarian” axis is generally centrist, but leaning more towards libertarian. As of lately however, I’ve begun seeing the need for a strong, but not necessarily authoritarian, leadership. I’ve begun thinking about how a more decentralized version of a proletarian state could be implemented. A sort of “federal communism”, I suppose.

Oros, do not take the path of the dark side. The authoritarian side of the force yields many abilities some consider to be unnatural.

[The New California Republic]

My political beliefs on the so called “libertarian-authoritarian” axis is generally centrist, but leaning more towards libertarian. As of lately however, I’ve begun seeing the need for a strong, but not necessarily authoritarian, leadership. I’ve begun thinking about how a more decentralized version of a proletarian state could be implemented. A sort of “federal communism”, I suppose.

Oros, do not take the path of the dark side. The authoritarian side of the force yields many abilities some consider to be unnatural.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

"I don't think we can be quite that general. Elements of authoritarianism cannot really be avoided in times of profound socio-economic reorganisation, for example."

That may be true, but even then, an attempt should be made to avoid it.

Libertarianism does permit disorder and civility in debate, but there is a difference between permitting something and encouraging it. You might look at today's state of debate and understand it to be a disaster, but I cannot think of anything that would really fix it, with or without authoritarian measures being taken to curb disorder and incivility. And as long as at least two people who disagree can have a meaningful respectful discussion, I believe those two will rise to the top. Unjust hierarchies and flawed institutions should not be given blind reverence and should be criticized. Most people think they know best because, legally they do, they have the final say in their lives. Doesn't mean what they do is a good idea, but they do have sovereignty over their lives, and no one does have the right to rule over them.

I wouldn't call democracy a committment to institutions or a shared history, I identify it as the manifestation of the person's right to not be taxed without representation. I don't believe that libertarianism would result in the majority of people no longer supporting democracy, even if it did, there would be checks and balances in place to ensure that democracy and other fundamental rights are not abolished.

Libertarianism doesn't empower forces that oppose it, it merely permits them. As it should, extremes, even those fundamentally opposed to the current order are necessary for discourse. At any rate, I would rather live in a liberal democracy with free speech in which the majority of people oppose liberalism, than in a liberal state where most people are satisfied with liberalism, but the people who aren't are censored and disenfranchised.

It should also be noted that I don't support "pure" libertarianism, I don't want to abolish welfare, taxes, public healthcare, police, the state, drivers licences, etc, and I think a moderate, incrementalist approach to one's political goals is generally best for everyone. I was probably to quick to react when Western Vale spoke positively of certain degrees of authoritarianism, and I do tend to get triggered when people speak positively of authoritarianism, and that is on me.

I disagree. I don't share your faith in people, the resilience of both civility and traditional checks and balances in a world of hyperindividualism, and our socio-economic priorities are of course also different. That said, I am glad to learn that you are not a purist or a zealot. You do argue your case well and if I saw reflective and intelligent discourse of this kind at the forefront more widely I might be more sympathetic to the perspective.

Fair enough. We're probably not going to convince each other on those points. We all have our differences and we have to learn to accept them. That's the only way we'll live in harmony.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

My political beliefs on the so called “libertarian-authoritarian” axis is generally centrist, but leaning more towards libertarian. As of lately however, I’ve begun seeing the need for a strong, but not necessarily authoritarian, leadership. I’ve begun thinking about how a more decentralized version of a proletarian state could be implemented. A sort of “federal communism”, I suppose.

Oros, do not take the path of the dark side. The authoritarian side of the force yields many abilities some consider to be unnatural.

Authoritarianism is basically the Dark Side of politics.

It is far more powerful than the light side, but more often than not corrupts its users.

[Silver Commonwealth]

Oros, do not take the path of the dark side. The authoritarian side of the force yields many abilities some consider to be unnatural.

Authoritarianism is basically the Dark Side of politics.

It is far more powerful than the light side, but more often than not corrupts its users.

Indeed.

[Autarkheia]

The dissolution of capitalism and the modern state in favor of decentralized federations underneath the monarchy, with some form of syndicalism or the guild system replacing private ownership of the means of production. Natural hierarchy would survive, but not the old class relations understood in the Marxist sense.

JRR Tolkien, is that you? Tradcon anarcho-monarchist gang

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

The dissolution of capitalism and the modern state in favor of decentralized federations underneath the monarchy, with some form of syndicalism or the guild system replacing private ownership of the means of production. Natural hierarchy would survive, but not the old class relations understood in the Marxist sense.

JRR Tolkien, is that you? Tradcon anarcho-monarchist gang

JRR Tolkein really believed in that?

[Autarkheia]

JRR Tolkein really believed in that?

Yes, he was a monarchist, conservative, and philosophical anarchist. He romanticized the idea of monarchy but didn't want it to have a lot of power and wanted Britain to be a decentralized, rural kind of society like the Shire.

[Liriena]

JRR Tolkein really believed in that?

Yes, he was a monarchist, conservative, and philosophical anarchist. He romanticized the idea of monarchy but didn't want it to have a lot of power and wanted Britain to be a decentralized, rural kind of society like the Shire.

He also supported dismantling the British Empire, opposed apartheid in South Africa... but also supported Franco during the Spanish Civil War because of the whole "republicans killing priests and nuns" thing.

[Autarkheia]

He also supported dismantling the British Empire, opposed apartheid in South Africa... but also supported Franco during the Spanish Civil War because of the whole "republicans killing priests and nuns" thing.

He was anti-fascist and hated the Nazis, so his support of Franco only makes sense when we keep in mind he was very religious. And (I hate to sound like a centrist here but) both sides did commit atrocities in the Spanish Civil War. It's just that the Nationalists were worse.

On a side note, there's a widespread belief that Tolkien was a racist (because his main characters are all white or something, maybe) which is not true. He has a bizarre following among neo-Nazis which is very ironic.

[Ostroeuropa]

He also supported dismantling the British Empire, opposed apartheid in South Africa... but also supported Franco during the Spanish Civil War because of the whole "republicans killing priests and nuns" thing.

He was anti-fascist and hated the Nazis, so his support of Franco only makes sense when we keep in mind he was very religious. And (I hate to sound like a centrist here but) both sides did commit atrocities in the Spanish Civil War. It's just that the Nationalists were worse.

On a side note, there's a widespread belief that Tolkien was a racist (because his main characters are all white or something, maybe) which is not true. He has a bizarre following among neo-Nazis which is very ironic.

There was also the fact that Francoism and the full extent of its atrocities were not commonly disseminated for quite a while, probably because first Nazis and then Commies were the focus.

The narrative of the good kingdoms of men in the west and bad kingdoms of men in the east appeals to certain folk, and fantastical racism (as a trope) also aligns with Nazi views of race. It also contains in its praise of Men by the Elves being repackaged death cultism, the notion that death drives the innovation of men while immortality drives the stagnation of the Elves, which aligns with Ur-Fascism and Nazi principles. This is treated as factual by the narrative.

[Autarkheia]

We can shoehorn in a reading of his work as fascist or racist (the good guys are the West, the bad guys are the East, the good guys are light-skinned, the bad guys are dark) but it does go directly again what the man himself said, so it would be a serious overreach. But his Nazi fans don't care because Nazis are stupid.

[Liriena]

He also supported dismantling the British Empire, opposed apartheid in South Africa... but also supported Franco during the Spanish Civil War because of the whole "republicans killing priests and nuns" thing.

He was anti-fascist and hated the Nazis, so his support of Franco only makes sense when we keep in mind he was very religious. And (I hate to sound like a centrist here but) both sides did commit atrocities in the Spanish Civil War. It's just that the Nationalists were worse.

On a side note, there's a widespread belief that Tolkien was a racist (because his main characters are all white or something, maybe) which is not true. He has a bizarre following among neo-Nazis which is very ironic.

I think Tolkien was only a racist insofar as there is an argument to be made that there may have been unconscious biases at play in how he described certain races in his work. But in terms of his outwardly expressed opinions, the dude was pretty chill, even if not the chillest.

Neo-nazis have a tendency to try to appropriate works that explicitly disagree with their bullshit in the text because they like the superficial aesthetics of them. They love the Stormcloaks' "Skyrim belongs to the Nords" shit despite the fact that the game is very explicit about the moral greyness of it (and that it is also a rather hypocritical stance, if you sympathize with the Forsworn, like I do). They love "Tomorrow belongs to me" from Cabaret, a film that's definitely not pro-nazi.

The high fantasy genre in particular, however, has the added problem of being a genre largely inspired by Tolkien's work which, in turn, was inspired by traditional tales, myths and folklore, which are fascism's bread and butter. Some authors have been able to deal with this problem through vicious deconstruction (A Song of Ice and Fire) or by just being extra-creative with their worldbuilding (Ursula K. Le Guin).

[Ostroeuropa]

He was anti-fascist and hated the Nazis, so his support of Franco only makes sense when we keep in mind he was very religious. And (I hate to sound like a centrist here but) both sides did commit atrocities in the Spanish Civil War. It's just that the Nationalists were worse.

On a side note, there's a widespread belief that Tolkien was a racist (because his main characters are all white or something, maybe) which is not true. He has a bizarre following among neo-Nazis which is very ironic.

I think Tolkien was only a racist insofar as there is an argument to be made that there may have been unconscious biases at play in how he described certain races in his work. But in terms of his outwardly expressed opinions, the dude was pretty chill, even if not the chillest.

Neo-nazis have a tendency to try to appropriate works that explicitly disagree with their bullshit in the text because they like the superficial aesthetics of them. They love the Stormcloaks' "Skyrim belongs to the Nords" shit despite the fact that the game is very explicit about the moral greyness of it (and that it is also a rather hypocritical stance, if you sympathize with the Forsworn, like I do). They love "Tomorrow belongs to me" from Cabaret, a film that's definitely not pro-nazi.

Naziism is mostly about style over substance when you get down to it though, right down to Leni Reifenstahl. Most nazis don't love Nazism as much as they do the films about Naziism.

There's probably also kayfabe going on. The appeal to a group of people to buy in to a narrative of struggle, heroism, and death. Facts that go against that narrative are unimportant, because it's about roleplay and feeling. This also drives the focus of Naziism. People love faces, but heels sell tickets.

The high fantasy genre in particular, however, has the added problem of being a genre largely inspired by Tolkien's work which, in turn, was inspired by traditional tales, myths and folklore, which are fascism's bread and butter. Some authors have been able to deal with this problem through vicious deconstruction (A Song of Ice and Fire) or by just being extra-creative with their worldbuilding (Ursula K. Le Guin).

There's not many Xenominds out there, and that depresses me, even in folklore.

[Liriena]

We can shoehorn in a reading of his work as fascist or racist (the good guys are the West, the bad guys are the East, the good guys are light-skinned, the bad guys are dark) but it does go directly again what the man himself said, so it would be a serious overreach. But his Nazi fans don't care because Nazis are stupid.

The underlined is the best take, tbh. Nazis are quite bad at interpreting art, literature and entertainment even at a surface level.

[Ostroeuropa]

We can shoehorn in a reading of his work as fascist or racist (the good guys are the West, the bad guys are the East, the good guys are light-skinned, the bad guys are dark) but it does go directly again what the man himself said, so it would be a serious overreach. But his Nazi fans don't care because Nazis are stupid.

The underlined is the best take, tbh. Nazis are quite bad at interpreting art, literature and entertainment even at a surface level.

You're assuming they care. I wouldn't take it as a sincere analysis, but an act of appropriation. They're not unaware of things that contradict it in many cases, they just ignore them.

[Liriena]

The underlined is the best take, tbh. Nazis are quite bad at interpreting art, literature and entertainment even at a surface level.

You're assuming they care. I wouldn't take it as a sincere analysis, but an act of appropriation. They're not unaware of things that contradict it in many cases, they just ignore them.

Also true.

[Liriena]

I think Tolkien was only a racist insofar as there is an argument to be made that there may have been unconscious biases at play in how he described certain races in his work. But in terms of his outwardly expressed opinions, the dude was pretty chill, even if not the chillest.

Neo-nazis have a tendency to try to appropriate works that explicitly disagree with their bullshit in the text because they like the superficial aesthetics of them. They love the Stormcloaks' "Skyrim belongs to the Nords" shit despite the fact that the game is very explicit about the moral greyness of it (and that it is also a rather hypocritical stance, if you sympathize with the Forsworn, like I do). They love "Tomorrow belongs to me" from Cabaret, a film that's definitely not pro-nazi.

Naziism is mostly about style over substance when you get down to it though, right down to Leni Reifenstahl. Most nazis don't love Nazism as much as they do the films about Naziism.

There's probably also kayfabe going on. The appeal to a group of people to buy in to a narrative of struggle, heroism, and death. Facts that go against that narrative are unimportant, because it's about roleplay and feeling. This also drives the focus of Naziism. People love faces, but heels sell tickets.

Which is why I lean in favor of the argument that the best anti-fascist art would be the art that savagely denigrates fascist aesthetics.

[Ostroeuropa]

Naziism is mostly about style over substance when you get down to it though, right down to Leni Reifenstahl. Most nazis don't love Nazism as much as they do the films about Naziism.

There's probably also kayfabe going on. The appeal to a group of people to buy in to a narrative of struggle, heroism, and death. Facts that go against that narrative are unimportant, because it's about roleplay and feeling. This also drives the focus of Naziism. People love faces, but heels sell tickets.

Which is why I lean in favor of the argument that the best anti-fascist art would be the art that savagely denigrates fascist aesthetics.

I agree. Springtime for Hitler is a better anti-fascist tactic than others. It is pretty campy to have regular organized and synchronized dances in large groups in public. It's not a march, you're not actually headed anywhere, just a big circle.

Pioneers of ballet. They proved a simple single move can captivate an audience performed en masse and executed well, even if its repeated ad nauseum.

The problem is though, because they're obsessed with aesthetic, narrative, story, and little else, they do have an edge in some ways. But you can make that silly too.

Oh sure you looked fabulous in those stylish uniforms freezing to death in Russia.
Women want pockets on their jeans dude, you can't get THAT far?

Maybe if you had more substance you'd remember clothes arent just for looking good. Not everything is about looking good. You're LARPing as a soldier. Your clothes are as useful as a plastic sword. A bunch of LARPers take on the soviet union, guess what happens next.

[Aellex]

Naziism is mostly about style over substance when you get down to it though, right down to Leni Reifenstahl. Most nazis don't love Nazism as much as they do the films about Naziism.

There's probably also kayfabe going on. The appeal to a group of people to buy in to a narrative of struggle, heroism, and death. Facts that go against that narrative are unimportant, because it's about roleplay and feeling. This also drives the focus of Naziism. People love faces, but heels sell tickets.

Which is why I lean in favor of the argument that the best anti-fascist art would be the art that savagely denigrates fascist aesthetics.

Tbh, actual fascist art was rather shit to say the least. Either it was just fucking smooth squares or ancient Rome knock-offs like in Italy or strapping swatizkas, skulls and pagan shit fucking everywhere like in Germany.

[Aellex]

We can shoehorn in a reading of his work as fascist or racist (the good guys are the West, the bad guys are the East, the good guys are light-skinned, the bad guys are dark) but it does go directly again what the man himself said, so it would be a serious overreach. But his Nazi fans don't care because Nazis are stupid.

I remember him shit-posting nazis in some of his letters and expressing repeated dislike of them so yeah, he very much would have disagreed with that interpretation of his work.

[Ostroeuropa]

Which is why I lean in favor of the argument that the best anti-fascist art would be the art that savagely denigrates fascist aesthetics.

Tbh, actual fascist art was rather shit to say the least. Either it was just fucking smooth squares or ancient Rome knock-offs like in Italy or strapping swatizkas, skulls and pagan shit fucking everywhere like in Germany.

It needs to be viewed in the context of its time. They purposefully adopted cutting edge fashion and art because they were obsessed with modernism. It's like those comics from the 60s about what the 2000s would look like, but what people in the 20s, 30s, and 40s thought the 2000s would look like. Sharp angles, refined simplicity, stuff like that.

With Germany you've also got the pagan shit. But let's be fair, pagan shit is fucking cool. I'll bet you dollars to donuts they'd have been lovecraft obsessed instead a few decades later.

[Aellex]

Tbh, actual fascist art was rather shit to say the least. Either it was just fucking smooth squares or ancient Rome knock-offs like in Italy or strapping swatizkas, skulls and pagan shit fucking everywhere like in Germany.

It needs to be viewed in the context of its time. They purposefully adopted cutting edge fashion and art because they were obsessed with modernism. It's like those comics from the 60s about what the 2000s would look like, but what people in the 20s, 30s, and 40s thought the 2000s would look like. Sharp angles, refined simplicity, stuff like that.

With Germany you've also got the pagan shit. But let's be fair, pagan shit is fucking cool. I'll bet you dollars to donuts they'd have been lovecraft obsessed instead a few decades later.

Futurism was probably the only major contribution Italy did during the Great War, change my mind.