= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ArisKatsaris comments on March 2013 Media Thread - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (65)
I think the alliance between nationalists and communists is a pan-European phenomenon after the end of the Cold War. My model of European politics says that after World War I and onwards there are three competing ideologies (Communism, Nationalistic-fascism, Progressivism/Liberalism) which concentrate around states and state alliances and shift ideological alliances after major events. If a power center suffers a significant defeat, its ideology tries to ally itself with another formerly opposed ideology. The victorious power center on the other hand seeks to purify itself from internal fractions, and thus becomes "purer" in a sense.
Initial ideological players: Soviet Union (Communism), Axis (Fascism), USA+UK+France (Progressivism)
World War II ends - Fascism under Germany suffered a devastating defeat, so the leftover nationalists (both as individuals, and as leftover regimes like Franco), allied themselves with the USA against the communists.
New ideological players: Warsaw Pact (Communism), NATO (Progressivism + nationalist fascism)
Cold War ends - Communism suffers a defeat, so the leftover communists (both as individuals, and as leftover regimes) seek an alliance with the remnants of fascism -- fascism accepts because progressivism holds it in contempt, and USA starts reducing interest in Europe to focus on Arab issues instead.
New ideological players: European Union (Progressivism), informal alliance centered on Russia (Nationalist fascism + communism)
Just to make sure: In your model, the laissez-faire guys are classified as a part of "Progressivism/Liberalism"? Or are they just statistically too insignificant to be included in any major political force?
Yeah, I meant Liberalism both in the sense it's used in America and in the sense of the classical laissez-faire liberalism. There are disagreements between social democrats and the libertarianian-minded, but they've not yet gone to war against each other as the other groupings have, and instead allied against both other groups I mentioned.
So even if one considers them different movements, they've been in steady alliance or at least friendly rivalry for the period in European history that I was considering, and I think can be treated as a single movement. I could also probably use the Moldbuggian "Universalist" term to put them together...
In what sense do you see more nationlist facism in NATO then there was before WWII in the USA, UK and France?
On the national level, in Europe alone you had Franco's Spain and Estado Novo's Portugal as founding members of NATO. The Kemalist nationalists of Turkey soon joined it -- and NATO accepted the nature of these regimes (and later the Greek junta of the colonels as well) in a way that the Warsaw Pact didn't accept ideological dissent in its own ranks (as seen by its invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia).
And if you track the allegiance of individuals you can get people like Georgios Papadopoulos who were Nazi collaborators, to becoming allied with USA against the communists in the junta of the colonels in the 1960s-1970s. And Greek people most supportive of that junta, are now the same people that are anti-American, anti-EU and pro-Russia now...
There's no change of ideologies in these people, they're very consistent in their political positions, and their themes: nationalism, racism, militarism, religion -- it's just that the same nationalist-fascist ideology has been supported by different sides: The Axis (primary ideology) at first, NATO (secondarily) later on, Russia now...