basically i have come to the conclusion that liberalism is a bourgoise ideology, the magority or liberal thinkers come from a ruling class background and cannot grasp the concept and importance of internal obtsacles. this is a fundamental flaw of the theory.
however, im open to discussing this. and also… i have nothing to back it up, it would be nice if anyone knew any good sources and resources i could use to build on this theory. sopporting or criticising, anything would be usefull.
cheers,
robbie.
Welcome to ILP (assuming that you aren’t a one post wonder),
“The notion of the freedom of the will is the invention of ruling classes” - Nietzsche. Search my post history for references to Nietzsche to find the textual source, I can’t remember it off the top of my head…
Nietzsche is wonderful for demonstrating how liberal values, liberal egalitarianism in particular, are hypocritical, patronising and encourage weakness, stupidity, the will to mediocrity etc. etc.
bourgoise is over used today in incorrect context but it is how its percieved. Im glad to see someone almost using it correctly.
I feel that when used in context today in a politcal or philsophical debate it holds the same relevence as calling somebody fascist or a commi.
but i do agree. This stride for the most possible inflicted liberties really is a flawed system. consequentially though members of a higher socialial class will always recieve favoritism in the form of more awarded liberties and rights.
I would have to agree but the same can be said for just about any type of value system including the values of Nietzsche.
So I ask this… Which values, laden with all its hypocrisy, would you rather have as the general consensus of society?
I don’t know about you but I would rather live in a liberal (whatever) type society.
ok so, if we agree that classic liberalism fails to recognise these internal obstacles and is therefore fundamentally flawed.
do you think this is becuase liberal thinkers come from the bourgoise and find it difficult to empathise with the internal obstacles to freedom that the proletariat suffer.
and yes, i know philosophers such as marx, engels and rousseau were all from the bourgoise and they recognise internal obstacles but im not speaking in absolutes here.
what do you guys think.
-robbie
Someefag,
Tell me how Fascism (a pretty common value system) encourages the will to mediocrity and I’ll agree. I’d also advise you to look up (if you have not already, you seem like an well informed person so this comment may be unnecessary) posthumanism, which is broadly speaking a development of Nietzschean philosophy.
- Respect for strength rather than respect for being born
- Qualification to vote/otherwise involve oneself in politics based on being intelligent and informed, rather than having survived until the age of 18
- The maximisation of freedom for those who demonstrate themselves worthy of it
- The ranking of demonstrable power over metaphyisical claims to ‘rights’
I loathe the liberal society because it either fails to achieve its aims or achieves them in a wholly contradictory and hypocritical manner. It makes victims of us all.
someoneisatthedoor,
“Conservatives of all times are adventitious liars.” - Nietzsche
I have been hesitant to respond to this post because I usually won’t engage in a debate about the pros and cons of Fascism. It is a waist of my time. The Fascist mentality is so far removed from my own that nothing will come of it. I have and will continue to terminate conversations with self proclaimed fascists by saying something to the effect of, “You’ll believe in your crap and I’ll believe in the revolution; whoever puts a bullet in the head of the other first will be the winner.” Since I don’t think you are advocating Fascism but only challenging me on my point I figure what the hell.
Okay… I’ll get you to agree, that shouldn’t be too difficult. I mean its Fascism after all- but first it must be defined! Like any political philosophy it’s hard to pinpoint exactly what Fascism is. So let’s look at the early Fascist movements led by Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco as our example. I will use nine key points to define Fascism. I’m sure there will be dispute to these claims, which will be interesting to hear, but for now these nine will do:
1. Claims to represent the will of the many but is in fact exclusively in support of the special interests of the few.
2. A political phenomenon that makes revolutionary appeals without revolutionizing the political/economic structure.
3. A political movement of the Right, protecting the interests of property and the class structure.
4. Reverence of leadership, the commitment to an absolute leader appearing to be knowing and all guiding.
5. The nation state as an end in itself to which the individual is subsumed.
6. Glorification of military conquest and obedience to the state through propaganda.
7. Violence and terror as the main method of dealing with noncompliance.
8. Propagation of state mysticism focusing on the special blood and legacy of the dominant culture having the effect of reinforcing the dominate cultures racism and xenophobia.
9. An opposition to socialism, communism, anarchism; basically all left egalitarian doctrines and movements. Also there is vehement resistance to trade unions and labor parties and other working class political organizations.
Within these nine points it is clear that Fascism does contain the exact same problems you find in liberal egalitarianism. I’ll list them in order and explain as concise as I can.
Hypocrisy- proclaiming to be a movement for the people while in the shadows stripping away their rights. If the population tries to address the over abundance of rights the elite have they are dealt with by violence.
Patronizing- building up the egos of the population with myths of a time when time when their culture was supreme, due to their incredible strength and purity.
Encourages Weakness- All problems are solved by the state and more importantly the leaders. All acts of personal strength should be for the behalf of the state, the individual is nothing, and you are nothing.
Stupidity- Propaganda and threat creates a culture of ignorance so deep critical thought becomes almost impossible. Making it easy for culturally stagnant developments like racism and xenophobic behavior to further the intelligence divide.
So the will to mediocrity is rampant in every aspect of Fascist culture, including the leading class. The leaders become dependent on their hierarchy and begin to buy their own deceptions. Once this state is reached no individual, not even the Leader, can be distinguished from the heard; the inevitable consequence is ruin. Fascism is an illusion, a beguiling myth for those who are weak, another route to meeting the Lastman. Nietzsche would have spit in the face of Franco, stomped on the balls of Mussolini, and laughed at Hitler’s misguided interpretations. Rightist political doctrines based on self interest (totalitarianisms like capitalism/fascism) indulge weakness by creating superficial idolic scapegoats like money, loyalty to the state, and sometimes even the afterlife with God.
You and I probably agree on politics more then we would disagree. But I don’t really want to get into the specifics of my politics because I feel it is neither necessary nor desirable to discuss in great detail. Instead I will briefly address the four values you mentioned in relation to my own.
As long as it is recognized that strength isn’t political success, property, wealth, or military might- these things are superficial. Strength is a commonly misrepresented as something its not. The desire for power isn’t something that should be avoided either, this is natural; we all wish to better ourselves. True strength is something else all together- we know it when we see it.
Rightist political doctrines align qualities of virtue with the acquisition of political success, property, wealth, and military might. It is also virtuous for those who do not posses such things to accept there position and if such things are desirable then they must work within the restrictions of the system. These virtues are laced with hypocrisy! These virtues demand an orderly and safe society where acquisition for the Possessor is done without much risk even when venturing outside the restrictions of the system, which is seen as a special type of virtue. While the Posses-less must make take greater risks and is denigrated when venturing outside the restrictions.
Qualification to vote is based on the level of participation in the voting process. The level of effect one has on a vote is directly proportional to how well informed one is and on how many other voters one can “win over.” This is done by a massive system of discourse similar too but not exclusively like a BBS.
The maximal freedom of the individual is the supreme goal, the state must be approached with skepticism. While at the same time individual freedom must be looked at critically. Freedom is hard to define and the unsought consequences of a definition can get out of hand. Sartre, Foucault and of course Nietzsche have much to say on this and I would like to explore their ideas of freedom to the fullest extent. But ultimately I believe the end goal is best described by Nietzsche in The Dawn of Day when he says, “As little state as possible!”
Belief in things like “rights” accomplishes little without action to support it. Individual rights exist only when the individual is willing to fight for them- be it violence or intellectual debate. One must find within oneself its own reasons to deserve rights, for they are responsible for creating their own value.
We are both looking for a political system which encourages everyone to pursue personal growth, strength of character, and honor (Noble); while preventing an environment which coddles its citizens into a life of mediocrity and alienation (Slave). I believe that there is a way to have an Egalitarian/Leftist movement while not making “victims of us all.” I have many problems have with modern liberal society but I still rally with them because their goals are far more similar to mine then that of the Right. If you disagree with everything I’ve said, great! It’ll be interesting to hear what you have to say. But know this- regardless of how clever your arguments may be, I will not budge.
PS. To be honest I haven’t had much desire to learn about posthumanism because of its interest in cyborgs. I don’t quite see how posthumanism applies to Fascism. I thought posthumanism was just humanism with the lines blurred between man/machine/nature. Or are you suggesting I read Pepperell because posthumanism offers good examples of what you would like to see in a governmental system?
Name one conservative politician in office who came from a background of strife.
I’m not saying that the other side is better, I’m just saying that your painting pictures of the other side, while turning a blind eye to the problems with the ideals you believe.
Is there conservative egalitarianism? No. Because they don’t care about the lower class individuals.
Liberal Egalitarianism is not without it’s problems in it’s application, but you must realize that the very cornerstone of helping the poor become educated is the cornerstone of the democracy (well at least the one in the USA). Thomas Jefferson felt that if the public wasn’t educated they wouldn’t be informed enough to make educated voting decisions.
This application of liberalism is better as it teaches the disparaged how to fish instead of feeding them fish.
edit: further response to SIATD:
And you don’t see the hypocrisy of such a statement? If we follow the logic presented by the starting post which you agree with:
“the magority or liberal thinkers come from a ruling class background and cannot grasp the concept and importance of internal obtsacles.”
Your statement of belief falls right in line with that. You believe only the strong should survive. That you have to “prove” your strength.
This is a rather weak argument. If beethoven had to prove he could hear before playing a concerto would that have been ideal?
If Stephen Hawking had to walk around to prove his strength would that be ideal?
We all have weaknesses and downfalls. Your philosophy (and others of it’s ilk) glaze over these to glorify strength.
Strength without knowledge is useless.
“it makes victims of us all”
How does the government body paying for equal opportunities (like public schools) make victims of us all? so that those born into opportunity don’t have the exclusive right to wealth? With the system we have now, while not perfect, anyone can become an entrepeneur and start their own business.
“fascism is ideal”
if you don’t mind bending over to corporate will, I’m sure you would agree with that. Of course you’re also using revisionist history and ignoring the failed fascist countries, whether it be Hitler’s regime, Mussolini’s failed fascist regime.
Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Quoted for truth.
one man’s truth is another man’s lie.
robbie,
Spensers’ altruism still baffles me in this matter. Man’s agricultural phenomena; which is ironically more unhealthy than hunting in limited groups. An asexual wouldnt need bourgoise excess. Nor a peacock-brain.
I’ll assume that you agree with some, if not all, of the above ‘values’?
Dear Someemofag,
I may advocate elitism in particular sections of society, but not Fascism. On the other hand we have to consider all available options…
Fair enough…
I’d say that all government does this, without a note of cynicism.
Who is it that tends to define the revolutionary?
Which property interests? State or Private?
This is also the case in monachies, communist dictatorships, theocracies…
Of course. And not a bad principle.
Moreso state control of media organs…
Like most European and American foreign policy of the last 5 centuries…
Yes and no, but I’ll not really quibble.
Remember Thatcher?
Rights only exist as part of the ongoing negotiation between institutional powers and the citizenry.
Or due to their ‘personal freedom’ ‘right to think as they please’…
I don’t see this as patronising…
No, you aren’t nothing, you are part of the state. I think that you’ve got this completely wrong…
I’ve met intelligent racists.
You haven’t proved them to be deceptions, but so be it…
All political ideologies are a way to meeting the lastman, I suppose…
Of course…
Whereas leftist political doctrines indulge weakness by convincing the mob that their weakness is alright because they’ll be bailed out, or they’ll receive some positive discrimination, or because they’re just as good as anyone else even if they are an impotent naysayer…
This is fine.
I’m not so sure about that, but democratic political success isn’t a sign of success, it’s a sign of being able to sell oneself as an everyman (or woman).
More freedom isn’t always a good thing
True, but if the people are idiots then the winning candidate will probably not be the most qualified, intelligent or principled, but the most handsome, pretty, or the one with the nicest voice.
He also said that the notion of freedom of the will is the invention of ruling classes…
Precisely…
I’ll discuss egalitarianism and its problems at some other time, I’ve been writing for ages already today and I need to do some reading
I said that posthumanism was in some regards a development of Nietzschean philosophy, Fascism is more the totalitarian end of humanism…
Communism.
Yeah, because like, ALL conservatives are like, totally wrong and like, all liberals are like, great, yeah?
Try learning about politics outside of the US, otherwise you aren’t in a position to discuss political philosophy…
Patronising tosh that isn’t even born out by policy…
They aren’t. Most people can’t even put together a legible sentence on the topic of politics, most people don’t even read the manifestos of the parties prior to voting.
Bill Clinton: Thank you, Lisa, for teaching kids everywhere a valuable lesson: If things don’t go your way, just keep complaining until your dreams come true.
Marge: That’s a pretty lousy lesson.
Bill Clinton: Hey, I’m a pretty lousy president.
No, there’s a purpose is having the weak, they just aren’t fit to take a part in ruling…
I’m not a big fan of Beethoven, I must say…
Why would a physicist have to walk around to prove their ability to do physics (no puns, please)?
Strength wins out over weakness in every field of human endeavour available for comment…
Tell that to weightlifters…
Because apparently we’re all inherently stupid, though innately free, and need a state-provided education in order to be able to use that freedom ‘properly’ (i.e. in the expression of sexuality, religion and a few other things that the liberal state approves) and otherwise risk becoming homeless deadbeats…
Wow, no, really, wow. Like, being able to start a business is the number one way of developing and enhancing my humanity, dude. Hey look, surf’s up!
Hah! The liberals are the worst revisionists available…
BRILLANT!!! =D>
of course… but they continue to deny this…
-Imp
Glad you enjoyed that one…
Looks like despotism is your cup-of-tea…
with a slight dash of democracy.
Mmmm, tricky business, that… My guess is that you’re talking soaringly, without pointing out anything in particular. Except for the second point, which is in perfect congruity with what I think would lead to a clear optimisation of the electorat’s level of preparation, ergo an improvement to the “validity” of the decisions taken, the other three are just samples of winged words. You havent’t posited anything new, because these are laws that emanate naturally from the fabric of reality. Respect for strength rather than respect for being born, and the superiority of those who prove themselves worthy of it are the de facto rules of every-day life since the world took being.
Formulating these rules and actually writing them down, as you see, has made a lot of people feel uneasy - generally, you have spoilt the fun of those who believe that we live in a just and democratic world.
The point is that here in Europe (the only place I really know enough about to discuss regarding politics) we went from Absolute Monarchy (more or less) to representative democracy without considering the implications therein. Despotism isn’t bad per se, it is bad when it of the sort practised by, say, Louis XIV, taxing the poorest people to enable the already rich to live lives of luxury and occassionally starting wars for no good reason. Louis even took on the Pope…
Present day democracy could be reformed to become something that would satisfy me but I’d prefer Enlightened Despotism…
This was mainly for the sake of brevity - I haven’t the time to write a full manifesto here…
The retard is allowed to vote because they have survived until the age of 18, not because they can construct anything like an informed and sound political opinion. I don’t think that power should be in the hands of the few necessarily, it all depends on who that few are, what they are doing and how they relate to the others.
More so I seek to spoil the fun of those who think democracy per se leads to a just world. Democracy can be just as bad as the Fascist dictatorship if it is of a certain kind, there’s nothing inherent in a political structure (democratic, oligarchic, whatever) that makes it good or bad, there is only the world as it is, the possibility of it being otherwise and the imagination of those involved in political discourse.
This is of course something that even political philosophers often fail to understand, they in their arrogance seek to try to wipe a certain philosophy (liberal, fascist, communist, whatever) off the map entirely as a matter of principle. There aren’t enough letters in political philosophy for it to include principles…