Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

vmchale.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 138 posts

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#81

Post by 1718627440 »

pessimizer wrote: post #47
Pxtl wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I think we've all seen the term "socialism" prettymuch destroyed into having no coherent meaning beyond "when government does stuff" for as long as I can remember, for example. I mean, I've seen people decry market-oriented solutions to problems (eg congestion pricing) as "socialism" which is broadly hilarious.

> "socialism" pretty much destroyed into having no coherent meaning beyond "when government does stuff" for as long as I can remember This is actually the best definition, for certain values of government. What's bizarre is that a bunch of people gave communists ownership of the definition of socialism. The communists who never even described it specifically, just refer to it as a mythical state that spontaneously oc…

> just refer to it as a mythical state that spontaneously occurs after all of the revolution

I think you have switched the terms here. Communism is what the mythical state is called. The political agenda leading to, during and after the revolution until that mythical state, is called socialism.

It's true, that socialism used to describe also a liberal way to curing poverty, but that split occurred over 150 years ago. Since then the parties that intend to keep democracy call themselves socialdemocratic and socialism is used exclusively for those calling for councils and revolution.

I'm a bit tired of hearing times and times again, that actually maybe socialdemocrats are also socialists. Socialdemocrats are not against private ownership, they just want it distributed differently. That's not socialist.

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#82

Post by 1718627440 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #44
skrebbel wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah the thing we call liberalism is much milder than that. It’s like the watered down, we-do-trust-the-government-but-maybe-tone-it-down-a-little version of libertarianism. I mean the same meaning as eg the Economist gives the term. I think maybe the term changed meaning in the US because for decades pretty much everyone agreed with it (no social democrats in sight, barring the occasional Bernie). A movement that ~ev…

It's a movement that won - won so thoroughly that nobody even remembers there was a war. But that means that, since nobody's fighting that war any more, the label (which has "winning" and even "being correct" attached to it in peoples' minds) is now up for grabs for other movements that want to win.

> It's a movement that won - won so thoroughly that nobody even remembers there was a war.

I don't think so. Some things might have been taken more or less for granted, but a lot of policies are now reopening that war again. See for example, the various threads about Chat Control in the EU recently on HN.

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#83

Post by 1718627440 »

silverquiet wrote: post #61
Gormo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it describes everyone who aims to use unrestrained political power to reshape society, i.e. the precise opposite of what "conservatism" actually means.

Perhaps conservatism doesn't necessarily fit into a left-right spectrum neatly. I recently saw fascism described as a version of collectivism that caters to the right.

> I recently saw fascism described as a version of collectivism that caters to the right.

Yes, I think that's its definition.

> Perhaps conservatism doesn't necessarily fit into a left-right spectrum neatly.

While conservatism is right, right isn't necessarily conservatism. Conservatism more describes a center-right party, the extreme right often is what is called fascism, with one alternative being fundamentalism. I think conservatism and fascism are pretty much mutual exclusive.

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#84

Post by 1718627440 »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #7

Afaik, there are already specific political definitions. It's just that "the common man" isn't very educated in them, and the "language of politics" eschews logic and specificity in favor of generalization (in order to induce rancor and thus party-alignment). Here is the political classification of the top 50 developed nations (I tried to organize them, but it's hard...): Qatar Absolute monarchy Oman Absolute monarch…

Not sure, why you are voted down. :-)

Why did you feel the need to specify that the USA are a representative democracy? A lot of other countries on your list are, I think this it is far more common then direct democracy.

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#85

Post by IAmBroom »

Pxtl wrote: post #59
pessimizer wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "socialism" pretty much destroyed into having no coherent meaning beyond "when government does stuff" for as long as I can remember This is actually the best definition, for certain values of government. What's bizarre is that a bunch of people gave communists ownership of the definition of socialism. The communists who never even described it specifically, just refer to it as a mythical state that spontaneously oc…

But by the all-encompassing definition you have here, having a military is socialism. Paying bus fare is socialism. Running elections is socialism. I'd argue that such a definition of socialism is so expansive as to be worthless.

By the classical definition, a government-paid military and city-run buses are absolutely socialist organizations.

Running elections is not a means of production, so it can't be socialist.

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#86

Post by IAmBroom »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #7

Afaik, there are already specific political definitions. It's just that "the common man" isn't very educated in them, and the "language of politics" eschews logic and specificity in favor of generalization (in order to induce rancor and thus party-alignment). Here is the political classification of the top 50 developed nations (I tried to organize them, but it's hard...): Qatar Absolute monarchy Oman Absolute monarch…

Your "top 50 developed nations" list actually omits China, the nation with the most extensive modern rail and nuclear power, one of the top three space-exploring nations. Or do you consider them "not developed"?

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#87

Post by timr »

1718627440 wrote: post #79
dijit wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I agree here. There are "right wing issues" and "left wing issues" and there is friction between them. What concerns me most is political "slurs" where everyone forgets the meaning of the term but constantly throws it around as if it's just a bad word. Then the conversation just goes off the deep end as soon as they're invoked. "You're a wokie" or "you're a fascist"; as if either of the people using thos…

> "woke" has a more concrete definition than fascist Fascist is a very concrete definition, as it is a comparison to a concrete existing historical movement. It's kind of the same as with Nationalsocialists. It is a term for a very concrete party, but is sometimes used as a slur.

> Fascist is a very concrete definition, as it is a comparison to a concrete existing historical movement.

If, by "very concrete definition" you mean "party name invented by Mussolini" [1], then yes. Otherwise, absolutely not. I can't tell from your comment which you're trying to imply.

Using the word in reference to a modern political movement is essentially just a lazy, dumb way of flinging a slur that invokes someone bad in history.

[1] Per Britannica: "[Mussolini] took the name of his party from the Latin word "fasces", which referred to a bundle of elm or birch rods (usually containing an ax) used as a symbol of penal authority in ancient Rome."

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#88

Post by 1718627440 »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #68
lapcat wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the intro could use some context. What do you mean by that?

I (like GP, most likely) did not live through the events that occurred in Moscow during 1991. The only news media I consumed at the time was Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, which did not cover Soviet politics, and we did not cover any of this in school later in the 90s and early 2000s. Most of what I learned after the fact has been from Fox and MSNBC and Red Alert 2 and Call of Duty - that commies and soci…

While I also neither lived through 1991 nor knew those terms, I found the text fairly understandable. But that might be, because I'm familiar with the political landscape the text describes.

I think this text is touching the basis of what became known of as the story of "the end of history" which we did cover in schools history lessons although not very detailed.

The article describes a trend of both the political right and left to the center, i.e. modern liberalism, which means that these distinction became less extreme. However this trend has now reversed. On the right that trend led to a rising of a new political party (AfD) that poses as the old conservatists to frustrated voters, but are actually more fascistic. On the left the party previously called communistic now calls for more aggressive "actions", accelerated by the split of of the not more conservative, but more aligned with more "bourgeois interests" flavored wing of the former. This also explains while the latter now is also seen favorable by voters who would previously would have been more aligned with the political right.

Thus, the text is neither outdated nor topical. It does not describe the current political landscape, but the origin and causes for it that lay in the previous one. As such it is very topical again.

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#89

Post by 1718627440 »

IAmBroom wrote: post #86
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #7

Afaik, there are already specific political definitions. It's just that "the common man" isn't very educated in them, and the "language of politics" eschews logic and specificity in favor of generalization (in order to induce rancor and thus party-alignment). Here is the political classification of the top 50 developed nations (I tried to organize them, but it's hard...): Qatar Absolute monarchy Oman Absolute monarch…

Your "top 50 developed nations" list actually omits China, the nation with the most extensive modern rail and nuclear power, one of the top three space-exploring nations. Or do you consider them "not developed"?

I don't know how it is in your country, but here China is still categorized as a developing country. We still pay them development aid. But I do think its miscategorized, if anything China is now the second world power and maybe soon the first. But of course the chinese government has now reason to stop this. The more power they can grab while still posing as a poor country, the better (for them).

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#90

Post by 1718627440 »

timr wrote: post #87
1718627440 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "woke" has a more concrete definition than fascist Fascist is a very concrete definition, as it is a comparison to a concrete existing historical movement. It's kind of the same as with Nationalsocialists. It is a term for a very concrete party, but is sometimes used as a slur.

> Fascist is a very concrete definition, as it is a comparison to a concrete existing historical movement. If, by "very concrete definition" you mean "party name invented by Mussolini" [1], then yes. Otherwise, absolutely not. I can't tell from your comment which you're trying to imply. Using the word in reference to a modern political movement is essentially just a lazy, dumb way of flinging a slur that invokes some…

> party name invented by Mussolini

Yes exactly that's what I meant with "concrete existing historical movement". I thought that would be unambiguous, what else do you thought I've implied?

It is however not exclusively used as a slur. What I hear more often from the mouth of politicians, is calling something fascistic, which means that is compared to it, so saying that X is using something from the playbook of the fascists.

This is why I am glad, that calling someone a Nazi is sue-able in my country. This means that we now have court decisions both for that someone is not a Nazi, it was a slur, and that this was punished, and also that someone is indeed a Nazi and is officially documented as such.

> as a symbol of penal authority

And this is actually a good description of what fascism stands for. I'm often astonished of how good self-labels actually are in defining and arguing against ideologies.

Post reply on HN