Nationalism is the True Religion

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Nationalism is the True Religion

Post by _Darth J »

why me wrote:
In 1945 we had three dominant ideologies: communism, fascism and capitalism.


It's when you characterized it as "communism, fascism, and capitalism," rather than "communism, fascism, and democracy" that you hit the ground.

The United States had a command and control, centrally-planned economy during World War II, by the way.
_Quasimodo
_Emeritus
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Nationalism is the True Religion

Post by _Quasimodo »

Darth J wrote:
why me wrote:
In 1945 we had three dominant ideologies: communism, fascism and capitalism.


It's when you characterized it as "communism, fascism, and capitalism," rather than "communism, fascism, and democracy" that you hit the ground.

The United States had a command and control, centrally-planned economy during World War II, by the way.


I REALLY hate to argue with you, Darth (it always turns out bad), but I don't believe that there is a conflict between Democracy and Communism.

Theoretically, they could both exist in the same regime. I don't think that has ever happened, but one is a system of government and the other is a system of economics.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Nationalism is the True Religion

Post by _Darth J »

Quasimodo wrote:
Darth J wrote:
It's when you characterized it as "communism, fascism, and capitalism," rather than "communism, fascism, and democracy" that you hit the ground.

The United States had a command and control, centrally-planned economy during World War II, by the way.


I REALLY hate to argue with you, Darth (it always turns out bad), but I don't believe that there is a conflict between Democracy and Communism.

Theoretically, they could both exist in the same regime. I don't think that has ever happened, but one is a system of government and the other is a system of economics.


I don't think there is, either. Nor is there necessarily a conflict between fascism and democracy. How did Hitler rise to power, again? (hint: by taking advantage of a democratic system) And how did Hitler obtain emergency powers? (elected representatives voted for him to have them). It turns out that people can appoint and vote their way into a totalitarian dictatorship.

But the U.S. did not perceive itself as defending "capitalism" leading up to or during WWII. Roosevelt did not give a speech about the "arsenal of 'capitalism.'" The central planning of the U.S. economy by the federal government during World War II would horrify free-market capitalists today. Plus, the Soviets were our allies. If we were defending "capitalism," we should have joined Hitler against the Soviet Union.
_Quasimodo
_Emeritus
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Nationalism is the True Religion

Post by _Quasimodo »

Darth J wrote:
I don't think there is, either. Nor is there necessarily a conflict between fascism and democracy. How did Hitler rise to power, again? (hint: by taking advantage of a democratic system) And how did Hitler obtain emergency powers? (elected representatives voted for him to have them). It turns out that people can appoint and vote their way into a totalitarian dictatorship.


I agree that the Germans in the Thirties voted themselves into a Fascist regime (Democracy had only been around since the end of the First World War and it was kind of new and unfamiliar to the Germans at that time). I don't think that one could call the Third Reich a Democracy, though. Fascism seems to preclude any opposing parties in elections.


But the U.S. did not perceive itself as defending "capitalism" leading up to or during WWII. Roosevelt did not give a speech about the "arsenal of 'capitalism.'" The central planning of the U.S. economy by the federal government during World War II would horrify free-market capitalists today. Plus, the Soviets were our allies. If we were defending "capitalism," we should have joined Hitler against the Soviet Union.


I think that the Industrialist powers in the U.S. were very scared of the ramifications of revolution in Russia after the First World War and put a lot of funding into a vilification of the Communists. Did you ever see the movie "Reds"?

The Soviets were our allies, but never our friends. After the U.S. supported the white factions (Tsarists) in Russia during the revolution, the Soviets saw it the same way.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Nationalism is the True Religion

Post by _Darth J »

Quasimodo wrote:
Darth J wrote:I don't think there is, either. Nor is there necessarily a conflict between fascism and democracy. How did Hitler rise to power, again? (hint: by taking advantage of a democratic system) And how did Hitler obtain emergency powers? (elected representatives voted for him to have them). It turns out that people can appoint and vote their way into a totalitarian dictatorship.


I agree that the Germans in the Thirties voted themselves into a Fascist regime (Democracy had only been around since the end of the First World War and it was kind of new and unfamiliar to the Germans at that time). I don't think that one could call the Third Reich a Democracy, though. Fascism seems to preclude any opposing parties in elections.


Well, in practice that is true of both the Third Reich and the Galactic Empire. But theoretically, people could keep voting to keep a fascist party in power.

But the U.S. did not perceive itself as defending "capitalism" leading up to or during WWII. Roosevelt did not give a speech about the "arsenal of 'capitalism.'" The central planning of the U.S. economy by the federal government during World War II would horrify free-market capitalists today. Plus, the Soviets were our allies. If we were defending "capitalism," we should have joined Hitler against the Soviet Union.


I think that the Industrialist powers in the U.S. were very scared of the ramifications of revolution in Russia after the First World War and put a lot of funding into a vilification of the Communists. Did you ever see the movie "Reds"?

The Soviets were our allies, but never our friends. After the U.S. supported the white factions (Tsarists) in Russia during the revolution, the Soviets saw it the same way.[/quote]

Yeah, but who in the U.S. during WWII said we were fighting for "capitalism," as opposed to fighting for "democracy"? Just like we are both saying democracy theoretically could coincide with communism, capitalism can happen without democracy.
_Quasimodo
_Emeritus
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Nationalism is the True Religion

Post by _Quasimodo »

Darth J wrote:
Yeah, but who in the U.S. during WWII said we were fighting for "capitalism," as opposed to fighting for "democracy"? Just like we are both saying democracy theoretically could coincide with communism, capitalism can happen without democracy.


:). And often does. South America, in general.

I realize that those who purport to be Capitalist Democracies are often lying about it. Syria stands out in my mind, right now. Just as Cuba claims to be a Democratic Communist country. There can be a big difference between what is claimed and what is real.

I think we may be getting a little past all that (hope so).
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
_ludwigm
_Emeritus
Posts: 10158
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:07 am

Re: Nationalism is the True Religion

Post by _ludwigm »

Darth J wrote:I don't think there is, either. Nor is there necessarily a conflict between fascism and democracy. How did Hitler rise to power, again? (hint: by taking advantage of a democratic system) And how did Hitler obtain emergency powers? (elected representatives voted for him to have them). It turns out that people can appoint and vote their way into a totalitarian dictatorship.
Quasimodo wrote:I agree that the Germans in the Thirties voted themselves into a Fascist regime (Democracy had only been around since the end of the First World War and it was kind of new and unfamiliar to the Germans at that time). I don't think that one could call the Third Reich a Democracy, though. Fascism seems to preclude any opposing parties in elections.
[quote="Darth J"]Well, in practice that is true of both the Third Reich and the Galactic Empire. But theoretically, people could keep voting to keep a fascist party in power. [quote]
Not "theoretically" and not "could".
in praxi and did


from http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/1 ... revolution :
In a free and fair election last spring in Hungary, the center-right political party, Fidesz, got 53% of the vote. This translated into 68% of the seats in the parliament under Hungary’s current disproportionate election law. With this supermajority, Fidesz won the power to change the constitution. They have used this power in the most extreme way at every turn, amending the constitution ten times in their first year in office and then enacting a wholly new constitution that will take effect on January 1, 2012.

This constitutional activity has transformed the legal landscape to remove checks on the power of the government and put virtually all power into the hands of the current governing party for the foreseeable future.
...
Under the new constitutional order, the judiciary has taken the largest hit. The Constitutional Court, which once had the responsibility to review nearly all laws for constitutionality, has been killed off in three ways. First, the government expanded the number of judges on the bench and filled the new positions with their own political allies (think: Roosevelt’s court-packing plan). Then, the government restricted the jurisdiction of the court so that it can no longer review any law that has an impact on the budget, like laws pertaining to taxes and austerity programs, unless the law infringes particular listed rights. Finally, the government changed the rules of access to the court so that it will no longer be easily able to review laws in the abstract for their compliance with the constitution. Moreover, individuals can no longer challenge the constitutionality of laws without first going through a lengthy process in the ordinary courts. The old Constitutional Court, which has served as the major check on governmental power in a unicameral parliamentary system, is now functionally dead.

The ordinary judiciary has suffered a similar fate. The government lowered the retirement age for judges from 70 to 62, giving judges only a few months to adjust to their new futures. More than 200 judges will be forced to retire from the bench starting on January 1, including most of the court presidents who assign cases and manage the daily workings of courts. The new law on the judiciary requires that the Supreme Court president have at least five years of Hungarian judicial experience. The current president of the Supreme Court is disqualified because his 17 years of experience as a judge on the European Court of Human Rights do not count. Therefore, he must leave office on January 1 also.
...
Virtually every independent political institution has taken a hit. The human rights, data protection and minority affairs ombudsmen have been collapsed into one lesser post. The public prosecutor, the state audit office and, most recently, the Central Bank are all slated for more overtly political management in the new legal order.

And all of this has happened while the press operates under day-to-day intimidation. A draconian set of media laws created a new media board – staffed only by Fidesz party loyalists with a chair who is appointed by the Prime Minister to a nine-year term. This board can review all public and private media for their compliance with a nebulous standard of political “balance” and has the power to bankrupt any news organization with large fines. It is not surprising that the media have become self-censoring.

Image

From this 1. Jan on, we are not Republic of Hungary but Hungary only. No, it is not a joke, it is official.

Orbán Viktor, our Prime Minister prepares his way...

Image
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
_why me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: Nationalism is the True Religion

Post by _why me »

just me wrote:
Uh, no they didn't. They didn't attempt an actual world government.

For example...the Washington Consensus you pointed me to still works on a nationalistic basis and mindset. That is why it failed. It lacked a world government, a world police force, a world judicial system. It lacked a world currency. To name a few problems with the policy...


Please read and get back to me:

http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story ... index.html

Washington Consensus

This is the set of 10 policies that the US government and the international financial institutions based in the US capital believed were necessary elements of “first stage policy reform” that all countries should adopt to increase economic growth. At its heart is an emphasis on the importance of macroeconomic stability and integration into the international economy - in other words a neo-liberal view of globalization. The framework included:

* Fiscal discipline - strict criteria for limiting budget deficits
* Public expenditure priorities - moving them away from subsidies and administration towards previously neglected fields with high economic returns
* Tax reform - broadening the tax base and cutting marginal tax rates
* Financial liberalization - interest rates should ideally be market-determined
* Exchange rates - should be managed to induce rapid growth in non-traditional exports
* Trade liberalization
* Increasing foreign direct investment (FDI) - by reducing barriers
* Privatization - state enterprises should be privatized
* Deregulation - abolition of regulations that impede the entry of new firms or restrict competition (except in the areas of safety, environment and finance)
* Secure intellectual property rights (IPR) - without excessive costs and available to the informal sector
* Reduced role for the state.

These ideas proved very controversial, both inside and outside the Bretton Woods Institutions. However, they were implemented through conditionality under International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank guidance. They are now being replaced by a post-Washington consensus


Yes, they did. Most countries had no choice but to implement this concensus. Of course, very few americans ever heard of this. Not surprisingly.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith


We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…”
Joseph Smith
_why me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: Nationalism is the True Religion

Post by _why me »

Darth J wrote:
why me wrote:
In 1945 we had three dominant ideologies: communism, fascism and capitalism.


It's when you characterized it as "communism, fascism, and capitalism," rather than "communism, fascism, and democracy" that you hit the ground.

The United States had a command and control, centrally-planned economy during World War II, by the way.


Not many people mention the hidden ideology that has governed the US: capitalism. However, at times Larry Kudlow mentions it when he describes himself as a supply side free market capitalist.

For The United States government, capitalism and democracy have the same meaning. In order to remain in control the capalistist elite had to enact economic reform policies to remain in control after WWII. The depression had a long memory especially in europe.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith


We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…”
Joseph Smith
_why me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: Nationalism is the True Religion

Post by _why me »

Quasimodo wrote:
If you think it through, why me, ideology is only an excuse for tribalism. It's still an "us against them" way of thinking. The Vietnam war started because the U.S. refused promised help in getting France out of Indochina. Ho Chi Minh was an ally of the U.S. against Japan. He only turned to the Soviets when America refused to help.


Ideology is more than tribalism. It is a way of life that guides people. For example, the united states has had a free market. self reliant capitalism that has given americans their value structure. In Western Europe after WWII the elite decided to enact a more social democratic model in order to take the sail out of communist support. This gave europeans a value structure that was somewhat different from the americans. Ideology is important for the economic and political elite. And we now see this happening in western and eastern europe as the economic elite shift direction to a more free market capitalism. And east europe, they experienced what noami klein labeled 'disaster capitalism' as did other countries that experienced radical change.

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/the-book

She hit the nail on the head. And we need to remember that this has nothing to do with nationalism but with ideology.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith


We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…”
Joseph Smith
Post Reply