The First World War Ended Today

[Mister D]

Too many of us, it's a black and white war and part of the remote past, however, it was not the Second World War but the first that largely shaped the modern world. It ended the long century of optimism and faith in human progress, transformed the political landscape of Europe, and gave birth to the ideas that dominated the 20th Century.

The First World War has long been a favorite period of mine and it ended today, November 11, 1918.

[KC]

For me the most interesting part is the interwar period. It was like a test period for liberalism, and it failed in Eastern Europe. It was also a good test period for the Welfare state, and I think we learned from Weimar that high levels of social spending are impossible to sustain.

[Mister D]

For me, it's the early period of the war: the colorful uniforms, the optimism, the relief in some quarters that war (something dynamic that promised answers) had finally come.

I hear you. Interwar Germany is fascinating but France is pretty interesting too. I've developed an interest in the French radical right.

[KC]

For me, it's the early period of the war: the colorful uniforms, the optimism, the relief in some quarters that war (something dynamic that promised answers) had finally come.

I hear you. Interwar Germany is fascinating but France is pretty interesting too. I've developed an interest in the French radical right.

Obviously you are a fan of De Benoist. I've looked him up a little, but he is apparently part of a French new right movement that seems completely independent of any of the American New Right movements?

Yeah, I think a lot of Eastern Europe hoped to gain a lot from the War in terms of independence and sovereignty, is that what you mean by the "relief"? It seems like they got their independence, but it turned out to be more than they could handle for the most part.

[Agravan]

For me the most interesting part is the interwar period. It was like a test period for liberalism, and it failed in Eastern Europe. It was also a good test period for the Welfare state, and I think we learned from Weimar that high levels of social spending are impossible to sustain.
Some people learned. The left refuses to learn from history because they are always smarter than those who are actually capable of learning.

[Mister D]

Obviously you are a fan of De Benoist. I've looked him up a little, but he is apparently part of a French new right movement that seems completely independent of any of the American New Right movements?

Yeah, I think a lot of Eastern Europe hoped to gain a lot from the War in terms of independence and sovereignty, is that what you mean by the "relief"? It seems like they got their independence, but it turned out to be more than they could handle for the most part.

I prefer the European right. It is closer to my way of thinking. There was always something unsatisfying about the American right but prior to late 20s I had been exposed to nothing else. I've moved a little left economically and I'm anti-liberal by which I mean anti-modern I find modern politics (classical liberalism and and all forms of progressivism) increasingly repulsive. Yes, the Europan right would think of the American right as quintessentially liberal. Eurooeans use "liberal" like we use conservative. It means the same thing (i.e. free market capitalism, economism etc.)

By relief I mean there was a great deal of anxiety in Europe because of the rapid pace of political, economic and swocial change in the late 19th Century.

[KC]

Some people learned. The left refuses to learn from history because they are always smarter than those who are actually capable of learning.

To be clear, when I say "liberalism" I'm talking about the more common use of the word, not the American sense of the word, which usually refers to the politics of Social Democrats, Progressives and Marxists. But you're right, it doesn't seem that the left anywhere has taken the lesson of Weimar Germany completely to heart. That's partly because the Weimar republic exercised welfare to extremes, and because the system was an ad hoc combination of state run welfare working together with private religious and secular charities (mostly religious, though).

I'm reading David Crew's "Germans on Welfare: From Weimar to Hitler" right now actually. Great stuff, but it gets a little bit nitty gritty into the details and case studies like Hamburg. I think you gotta love policy to enjoy a book like that.

[Mister D]

Some people learned. The left refuses to learn from history because they are always smarter than those who are actually capable of learning.

That's not the liberalism he means. he means democracy and representaive government.

[KC]

I prefer the European right. It is closer to my way of thinking. There was always something unsatisfying about the American right but prior to late 20s I had been exposed to nothing else. I've moved a little left economically and I'm anti-liberal by which I mean anti-modern I find modern politics (classical liberalism and and all forms of progressivism) increasingly repulsive. Yes, the Europan right would think of the American right as quintessentially liberal. Eurooeans use "liberal" like we use conservative. It means the same thing (i.e. free market capitalism, economism etc.)

So when you talk about the European right not being liberal, that's conceptually confusing for me. I generally think of the right as supportive of liberal market polices. You're saying the European right isn't in favor of market liberalism?

[Mister D]

So when you talk about the European right not being liberal, that's conceptually confusing for me. I generally think of the right as supportive of liberal market polices. You're saying the European right isn't in favor of market liberalism?

New Rightists especially hate liberalism. They consider liberalism the dominant ideology of the modern world while progressivism is just a form liberalism takes.

I often use this example: If you were to ask a continental European to name a famous liberal politician of the last 40 years they would be likely to say Reagan or Thatcher.

[Mister D]

To be clear, when I say "liberalism" I'm talking about the more common use of the word, not the American sense of the word, which usually refers to the politics of Social Democrats, Progressives and Marxists. But you're right, it doesn't seem that the left anywhere has taken the lesson of Weimar Germany completely to heart. That's partly because the Weimar republic exercised welfare to extremes, and because the system was an ad hoc combination of state run welfare working together with private religious and secular charities (mostly religious, though).

I'm reading David Crew's "Germans on Welfare: From Weimar to Hitler" right now actually. Great stuff, but it gets a little bit nitty gritty into the details and case studies like Hamburg. I think you gotta love policy to enjoy a book like that.

Didn't Bismarck bring many social reforms to Germany?

[Mister D]

When I received my first issue of American Renaissance I finally felt like I was at home politically. That's a racialist periodical like The Occidental Quarterly and Mankind. From there I've been introduced to a great many authors and intellectuals most of whom are Europeans. I feel that I can work with American rightists but we don't believe the same things.

[KC]

Didn't Bismarck bring many social reforms to Germany?

That's one of main topics I'm focused in on for my term paper right now. I'm trying to dig up the differences between Wilhelmine social welfare and Weimar social welfare. The period until WWI seems to be more occupied with poor relief with the immediate goal of preventing a socialist revolution (One of Bismarck's stated goals) while the Social Democrats actually wanted to change the system in order to make it preventive of social ills, create a greater "social spirit," undermine the individual causes of poverty and, according to Alice Salomon, to make it so welfare was no longer accountable to "God, the State, the community, but rather to the individual in need."

Basically, it looks like the Bismarck reforms were more of a pragmatic approach against the threat of socialism, while the Social Democrats wanted to create a system that was friendly to state socialism.

[KC]

New Rightists especially hate liberalism. They consider liberalism the dominant ideology of the modern world while progressivism is just a form liberalism takes.

I often use this example: If you were to ask a continental European to name a famous liberal politician of the last 40 years they would be likely to say Reagan or Thatcher.

Right, that much I follow. But what I want to know is what sort of economic policies the European New Right would support.

[Mister D]

Right, that much I follow. But what I want to know is what sort of economic policies the European New Right would support.

It's a fairly diverse group that does not advocate particular policies (economic or otherwise) but they are not against state intervention in the economy. The collective interest, in their view, should not be subordinated to the individual interest.

[Mister D]

That's one of main topics I'm focused in on for my term paper right now. I'm trying to dig up the differences between Wilhelmine social welfare and Weimar social welfare. The period until WWI seems to be more occupied with poor relief with the immediate goal of preventing a socialist revolution (One of Bismarck's stated goals) while the Social Democrats actually wanted to change the system in order to make it preventive of social ills, create a greater "social spirit," undermine the individual causes of poverty and, according to Alice Salomon, to make it so welfare was no longer accountable to "God, the State, the community, but rather to the individual in need."

Basically, it looks like the Bismarck reforms were more of a pragmatic approach against the threat of socialism, while the Social Democrats wanted to create a system that was friendly to state socialism.

Interesting stuff. Let me know what your ultimate conclusions are. It's of interest to me.

[KC]

It's a fairly diverse group that does not advocate particular policies (economic or otherwise) but they are not against state intervention in the economy. The collective interest, in their view, should not be subordinated to the individual interest.

Not to offend, D, and do not misconstrue this as Reductio ad Hitlerum, but from what I understand from what you've told me is that the European New Right is anti liberal in both economic and social issues. If they're largely in favor of using the state to promote the collective interests of the citizen, and from what I gather support more traditional values, then how are they different from earlier Fascist movements, a la Benito Mussolini or otherwise? After all, Mussolini made traditionalism an essential plank of his Fascist movement, but at the same time strongly supported state intervention in the economy in favor of collective interests.

[KC]

Interesting stuff. Let me know what your ultimate conclusions are. It's of interest to me.

Will do. I have a lot more reading to do, I'll be back later to chat about this new right ideology, but for now I should be hitting the books hard.

[Mister D]

Not to offend, D, and do not misconstrue this as Reductio ad Hitlerum, but from what I understand from what you've told me is that the European New Right is anti liberal in both economic and social issues. If they're largely in favor of using the state to promote the collective interests of the citizen, and from what I gather support more traditional values, then how are they different from earlier Fascist movements, a la Benito Mussolini or otherwise? After all, Mussolini made traditionalism an essential plank of his Fascist movement, but at the same time strongly supported state intervention in the economy in favor of collective interests.

None taken. I'm sympathetic to fascism. I don't take that as an insult. It's only insulting when people use it as an excuse to dismiss your ideas without honestly engaging them.

As for the New Rightists, they explicitly reject racism, intolerance, and aggression. I've seen no one advocate a cult of virility or glorify war. In fact, they are largely critical of the US and its efforts to maintain its empire. Neither do they advocate an authoritarian model of government but rather a decentralized European federalism.

[Mister D]

Will do. I have a lot more reading to do, I'll be back later to chat about this new right ideology, but for now I should be hitting the books hard.

I shoudl get a tome on the 19th Century. Maybe for Christmas.

[Carygrant]

T
The First World War has long been a favorite period of mine and it ended today, November 11, 1918.


Nice to have confirmation that you have periods .
i think we can deduce quite a bit from that .

[KC]

None taken. I'm sympathetic to fascism. I don't take that as an insult. It's only insulting when people use it as an excuse to dismiss your ideas without honestly engaging them.

As for the New Rightists, they explicitly reject racism, intolerance, and aggression. I've seen no one advocate a cult of virility or glorify war. In fact, they are largely critical of the US and its efforts to maintain its empire. Neither do they advocate an authoritarian model of government but rather a decentralized European federalism.

Glad you don't take that as an insult. Comparisons to Fascism can be taken the wrong way because Hitler is usually the first thing to come to mind, but in reality it seems European Fascism has had an enduring impact on modern political thought and it is present to some degree in both American political. parties.

Ah, so there is some support in the New Right movement for policies that we could compare to softer fascist regimes, but they take different attitudes toward race and foreign policy. But I gather they're not strictly anti interventionist either, then? And if there is any immediate need in Europe it's for decentralization.

[Captain Obvious]

Carygrant has been banned from this thread

Please do not respond to his posts.

[Mister D]

Glad you don't take that as an insult. Comparisons to Fascism can be taken the wrong way because Hitler is usually the first thing to come to mind, but in reality it seems European Fascism has had an enduring impact on modern political thought and it is present to some degree in both American political. parties.

Ah, so there is some support in the New Right movement for policies that we could compare to softer fascist regimes, but they take different attitudes toward race and foreign policy. But I gather they're not strictly anti interventionist either, then? And if there is any immediate need in Europe it's for decentralization.

Your average person knows virtually nothing about fascism. It's a label they apply to things they don't like. As a historian (albeit we're amateurs) I'm sure you find that as offensive as I do.

no, I wouldn't say they are strictly anti-interventionist but their primary concern was the liberation of Europe from what they saw (justifiably, IMO) as a de facto American occupation during the Cold War. European states are still seen as vassals of the US who are dominated politically and culturally. There is quite a bit of truth to that. Moreover, Europe is in no position to e aggressive internationally at this time ad I see only modest calls for a European defense force.

As for race, many of them racialists to some degree but not racists. Let a thousand flowers loom but each in it's own plot, so to speak. I agree 100%.

[KC]

I agree. The US was hyper interventionist in Europe. Not sure whether we still try to exercise the same amount of influence in Europe today. Mostly I avoid reading too much about current foreign policy since it only frustrates me.

I think a high school politics class should do more than just touch on liberal vs conservative. My AP class did a little better by introducing us to the two dimensional tests, but the fact that most Americans don't understand fascism makes the term easily exploited by politicians on both sides of the aisle.

[Mister D]

I agree. The US was hyper interventionist in Europe. Not sure whether we still try to exercise the same amount of influence in Europe today. Mostly I avoid reading too much about current foreign policy since it only frustrates me.

I think a high school politics class should do more than just touch on liberal vs conservative. My AP class did a little better by introducing us to the two dimensional tests, but the fact that most Americans don't understand fascism makes the term easily exploited by politicians on both sides of the aisle.

We've transformed the European elite. It's firmly Americanized. The disagreements we have may seem serious at times but look at the multiculturalism, immigration, and hyper-individualism among much else being promoted in Europe. That's American influence. Europe's elite promotes American ideals. The free market is also widely accepted in Europe as well. It's funny to hear people talk about us becoming more like western Europe. Overall, they've become more like us.

Yes, it does but somehow I doubt those pols themselves know what they're talking about.

For me, the America left and right argue over details. They share the same liberal ideology.

[KC]

We've transformed the European elite. It's firmly Americanized. The disagreements we have may seem serious at times but look at the multiculturalism, immigration, and hyper-individualism among much else being promoted in Europe. That's American influence. Europe's elite promotes American ideals. The free market is also widely accepted in Europe as well. It's funny to hear people talk about us becoming more like western Europe. Overall, they've become more like us.

Yes, it does but somehow I doubt those pols themselves know what they're talking about.

For me, the America left and right argue over details. They share the same liberal ideology.

Funny how two people can look at the same picture and see two totally different things. I don't think that either party of the left or right in America is liberal.

[Mister D]

Funny how two people can look at the same picture and see two totally different things. I don't think that either party of the left or right in America is liberal.

I'm sure the fascists and communists would have balked at any suggestion of ideological similarity but I think we can both agree those similarities exist on the level of ideas and much more so on the level of day to day reality (i.e. how the state actually functioned). This is why I like coming here. I'm off to bed soon but I will chime in come morning. I will go into detail regarding the New Right's view of modern politics.

[KC]

U
I'm sure the fascists and communists would have balked at any suggestion of ideological similarity but I think we can both agree those similarities exist on the level of ideas and much more so on the level of day to day reality (i.e. how the state actually functioned). This is why I like coming here. I'm off to bed soon but I will chime in come morning. I will go into detail regarding the New Right's view of modern politics.

You're right. They did share a lot in common, but moreso in application than in theory. I'd hate to be any one who isn't part of the political or ethnic majority in either regime. Markets reward talent, skills and ability, among other things. When the state runs the market, it rewards ideological purity and political convenience.

[RollingWave]

U

You're right. They did share a lot in common, but moreso in application than in theory. I'd hate to be any one who isn't part of the political or ethnic majority in either regime. Markets reward talent, skills and ability, among other things. When the state runs the market, it rewards ideological purity and political convenience.

unfortunately to some extend political conveniences seem to mix with the former a bit too much among other problems. At the end of the day Markets and Politics can rarely separate from one another completely, it is more or less only a matter of degree.