List of internally consistent political philosophies

[Five of swords]

In general, politics is just about emotion and identity and nobody bothers to take a serious look into politics rationally. 99.9% of humans, including in this forum, suffer from absurd internal contradictions in their politics which reveal that politics per se is not their real concern...they are simply attempting to help their team 'win' via talking.

 

There is a very short list of internally consistent political worldviews, and I want to just add clarity to what they are and what axioms they are based on as a quasi mathematical exercise:

 

1) theocracy/monarchy : a human being is fundamentally considered a servant of God (or the gods). The legitimacy of the state stems from the priest class and is based on how good the state is at following the commands of their God. What the commands of their God actually is winds up being the difficult part of governance...sometimes it is written in a book and the book is usually vague and open to interpretation. Theocracy is intrinsically vulnerable to the priest class simply deciding to exploit the masses, if the priest class is simply capable of lying.

Iiberalism: I mean actual liberalism that overtook monarchy as the dominant political philosophy in Europe during the 'enlightenment'. In liberalism a human is an 'individual'...tabula rasa is an important prior to liberalism being legitimate...because in essence liberalism is anti political and logical consistency in that paradigm tends towards anarchy (and anarchists tend to be the most internally consistent liberals). But the main goal of liberalism is meritocracy, and it functions exactly like the 'invisible hand' of capitalism but applied to society as a whole rather than merely the economy. The basic assumption is that if individuals compete in a fair game, the result is the uplifting of those individuals with the most merit. There is a subtle aspect of darwinian natural selection to liberalism because if people fail, it is generally implied that it is because they were weak and unworthy, because failure is a choice, because tabula rasa. Liberalism is actually fundamentally inconsistent with democracy because while liberalism is anti political, democracy politicizes the masses and naturally result in voting blocks based on identity, and identity is a primarily a birthright (such as race) that refutes the principle of tabula rasa. Liberalism being so individualist also makes teamwork and collaboration next to impossible, because some individual has to be the winner and the other the loser. 

Communism: most people who think they are communist don't seem to be, because the most important foundation of communism is the materialist dialectic, which means that wealth (or class, or 'ownership of the means of production' or whatever fancy term you use) is the ONLY thing that matters. All other issues are distractions from that issue. Race, colonialism, etc are therefore irrelevant in a communist paradigm. Communism is also intrinsically globalist because 'workers' exist all over the world. Communism and libertarianism share the concept of a human being primarily an economic unit. The role of government for communists is to provide all people with their material needs.. while libertarians would suggest that the role of government is to protect property rights and allow the 'invisible hand' of liberalism/capitalism to do its thing. So I woukd categorize libertarianism as a mix of the individualist and competitive part of liberalism with the communist obsession with wealth and property. Communists seem to believe that wealth inequality is the source of a exploitation so I suppose the most fundamental ethical principle of communism is that exploitation is bad.

 

Libertarianism: libertarians seem to be drastically focused on the ethics of property rights and they will artistically deduce policy based on the principle that property rights are good. But they also throw in an extra principle with at first glance seems arbitrary: the 'non aggression principle'. The way I read that, however, is that aggression is bad because unlike some economic transaction, it is involuntary. The foundation of liberalism therefore seems to be the belief that as long as everything is voluntary, society will be good. I would say libertarians have an unrealistically optimistic view about the human condition and it simply isn't true that people will always have the knowledge or the willpower to do the right thing...that is why leadership is needed. This philosophy is borderline for me on the 'admissible consistency' meter because the very fact that some people reject libertarian philosophy kinda undermines the essence of their assumptions about reality. People like hoppe might attempt to fix this issue by basically violating the NAP but that winds up being ideologically self defeating. 

 

National socialism: this political philosophy rests on the assumption that human beings are a biological life form. Rather than attempting to deny or change our fundamental human nature, natsocs simply accept and embrace it. The role of a national socialist state is the survival and thriving of a particular people..such as an ethnic group...who are born into their identity rather than it being voluntarily chosen.  The essence of social cohesion and altruism in thr country is understood to be a product of the people's sense of belonging...and this may be linked to genetic similarity as is observed in kin selection. A mother cares more about her own child than that of a stranger, and that principle generalized is how a natsoc views how to construct the most functional society. This may of course involve the exclusion of people who do not belong, which will potentially make people who don't belong sad...but at least if you go live elsewhere a natsoc state isn't going to bother you because imperialism involves absorbing people into your empire who do not belong, and that violates the fundamental principle. The 'socialist' part of national socialism is perfectly accurate, because natsocs do see it a responsibility of the state to provide the people with the material needs and opportunities required for them to thrive and have a decent quality of life. If some private capitalist institution is causing a problem in that way, the state is expected to step in and correct it. 

Edited July 12 by Five of swords

[Matthew]

Good post, though I'm not sure if national socialism is internally consistent.

There is an inherent conflict between nationalism and socialism which is difficult to resolve. The German Nazis certainly never resolved it. For instance, in their platform of 1925, the nationalist objectives were more numerous, more dramatic, and completely distinct from the objectives that were geared to be pro worker and pro social equity. In the decades the followed, the nationalist objectives were overwheling focus of their policies. This seems to suggest that the idea of a nationalist version of socialism was is mostly marketing,  probably as a way to appeal to radical worker groups that were popular in the 1920s-1930s.

[Five of swords]

35 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Good post, though I'm not sure if national socialism is internally consistent.

There is an inherent conflict between nationalism and socialism which is difficult to resolve. The German Nazis certainly never resolved it. For instance, in their platform of 1925, the nationalist objectives were more numerous, more dramatic, and completely distinct from the objectives that were geared to be pro worker and pro social equity. In the decades the followed, the nationalist objectives were overwheling focus of their policies. This seems to suggest that the idea of a nationalist version of socialism was is mostly marketing,  probably as a way to appeal to radical worker groups that were popular in the 1920s-1930s.

Eh? I don't see how you can have nationalism without socialism. If your priority is the well being of a people, then you cannot leave their fate to the 'market' which is totally apathetic about people and only sees profit.

[Matthew]

18 hours ago, Five of swords said:

Eh? I don't see how you can have nationalism without socialism. If your priority is the well being of a people, then you cannot leave their fate to the 'market' which is totally apathetic about people and only sees profit.

That is true, but government policies aimed helping the well-being of people against the self-interest of markets are not necessarily socialism. Most governments do this in way or another regardless of the economic school of thought that guides their policymaking.

[Five of swords]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

That is true, but government policies aimed helping the well-being of people against the self-interest of markets are not necessarily socialism. Most governments do this in way or another regardless of the economic school of thought that guides their policymaking.

Actual national socialist throught leaders such as Francis Parker yockey basically defined the difference between socialism and capitalism as a state of mind. Socialists focus on what is good for a group while capitalists focus on the individual and conflict/competition.

 

Certainly the 25 point platform of the national socialists would be called socialist by any normal person, although definitions of socialism seem to be slippery. But he insisted it was the responsibility of the state to provide all people with a decent quality of life and opportunity, that all major corporations would be controlled by the state, education for gifted students would be free, etc. 

 

A distinction was made in their party between industry and finance. What seemed like the greatest offense in national socialism was people making money simply because they have money...and a lot of the socialist attitude was that everyone had to work in order to make money...nobody was 'exempt' from working simply because they were rich. Since industry does in fact produce tangible stuff, they were far more tolerant of it.

 

A major effort was made for land reform, because charging rent is another way to make money without production. But the practical consideration of needing junker support complicated the issue, and became the major reason for the divorce between Hitler and the Strasser brothers. Regardless, Hitler did manage to incentivize homesteads over large farms.

 

Anyway, I'm not sure how you define socialism. But accorsiung to many of the more typical definitions, the national socialists should be considered a lot more socialist than communists were, especially because they wanted autarky

[Matthew]

On 7/16/2024 at 7:26 PM, Five of swords said:

Certainly the 25 point platform of the national socialists would be called socialist by any normal person

Point #14 is the only definitively socialist objective on the list. If you want to be generous then perhaps points #15 and #22. Most of it is overwhelmingly nationalist ideology with no overlap of socialism.

 

On 7/16/2024 at 7:26 PM, Five of swords said:

What seemed like the greatest offense in national socialism was people making money simply because they have money

Wealthy Germans and German corporations largely supported the Nazis and in turn the Nazis did not target them with their forced labor policies, nor attempt to liquidate the elite business and aristocracy classes. Capitalist finance and banking continued, though within the goals and parameters set by the state.

 

On 7/16/2024 at 7:26 PM, Five of swords said:

A major effort was made for land reform, because charging rent is another way to make money without production. But the practical consideration of needing junker support complicated the issue, and became the major reason for the divorce between Hitler and the Strasser brothers. Regardless, Hitler did manage to incentivize homesteads over large farms.

Plausible, though I'm not aware of nazi policies or ideas about rent. Many societies, including most governments today regardless of economic philosophy, have engaged in rent control and limitations upon landlords.

 

On 7/16/2024 at 7:26 PM, Five of swords said:

national socialists should be considered a lot more socialist than communists were

That statement doesn't make much sense. 20th century left wing communist parties were typically based on Marxist-Leninist socialism. Maybe the Nazis did create some kind of right wing ultra nationalist socialism in some way. But the socialist elements are pretty minimal, especially after the Nazis actually came to power.

[Five of swords]

10 hours ago, Matthew said:

Point #14 is the only definitively socialist objective on the list. If you want to be generous then perhaps points #15 and #22. Most of it is overwhelmingly nationalist ideology with no overlap of socialism.

 

Wealthy Germans and German corporations largely supported the Nazis and in turn the Nazis did not target them with their forced labor policies, nor attempt to liquidate the elite business and aristocracy classes. Capitalist finance and banking continued, though within the goals and parameters set by the state.

 

Plausible, though I'm not aware of nazi policies or ideas about rent. Many societies, including most governments today regardless of economic philosophy, have engaged in rent control and limitations upon landlords.

 

That statement doesn't make much sense. 20th century left wing communist parties were typically based on Marxist-Leninist socialism. Maybe the Nazis did create some kind of right wing ultra nationalist socialism in some way. But the socialist elements are pretty minimal, especially after the Nazis actually came to power.

Well there was in fact greater than zero production in Germany, if that is inconsistent with socialism