From: b5nkateNOSPAM@hotmail.com   
      
   On 28 Jul 2004 11:05:18 -0700, pete_bayle@yahoo.com (Pete Bayle)   
   wrote:   
      
   >Yet this blend was not unique. There were various attempts to combine   
   >socialism with nationalism against captialism - the Nazis and the   
   >National Bolsheviks in Germany being two examples. Interestingly in   
   >Germany some of this came from movements youth movements involved in   
   >hiking and a sort of back to nature rediscovery of Volkish roots and a   
   >kind of spirituality - something we see today in some of the   
   >environmental movements I think. I'm not sure how this might have been   
   >expressed in England but Orwell made various statements mocking some   
   >of these kinds of ideas IIRC.   
      
   The Nazis took the name 'socialist' more as a mockery rather than any   
   ideological reasons; there was nothing remotely Socialist in Nazism   
   whose core ideology was based around race, whilst Socialist ideology   
   was centered around equality.   
      
   >In addition to the national focus there was also a strong   
   >anti-technology, anti-modern element in some of this. Though it is   
   >complicated. Some of the German conservatives wanted the modern   
   >technology without the corruption of their society.   
      
   I think early Nazism's appeal lay with the lower middle class who were   
   begining to see their traditional way of life (whatever that was)   
   slowly being eroded with the 'march of progress'...they did see   
   modernity as a threat, which is why all the 'mumbo-jumbo' stuff about   
   'volkish roots' etc. Industrialisation had destroyed their old way of   
   life, and many didn't adjust very well and looked for scapegoats. We   
   see a rise in extreme right wing organisations in Germany dating from   
   the end of the 19thC basing their ideas on eugenics, militarism, a   
   virulent racism (and antisemitism) and an idealised vision of the past   
   (the old 'thousand year reich').   
      
   >So one question I would ask you is how important do you think   
   >internationalism and anti-technology or environmentalism is to your   
   >(or Orwell's) definition of socialism?   
      
   Central apart from anti-technology. Technology has the ability to   
   improve ways of life in untold measures, and to any Socialist that   
   should be embraced. Its how its used is the critical question.   
      
      
   >   
   >If 1984 is read as technology mobilized and magnified by the massive   
   >power of a State in the attempt to create complete equality, then   
   >given this extreme solution isn't lassaiz faire liberal bourgeois   
   >democracy, however messy and imperfect, a better solution. Especially   
   >if implemented at a local level taking into account different   
   >cultures.   
      
   Lassaiz Faire economics died a death with the 1929 crash; the   
   subsequent global recession in the 30's proved that unregulated market   
   economies were prone to the cyclical boom and slump...and 1929 was its   
   death knell. In fact Stalinist Russia escaped the effects of this   
   recession and was in the process of growth due to the five year plans.   
   State planned economies, Keynesianism and its varients, became the   
   order of the day, so I dont think free market economics worked as well   
   as people liked to  believed they did at that time.   
      
      
   I need to read more on Orwell. Its only recent that I have come across   
   some quite hostle stuff about him being more right-wing that I would   
   have liked to believe. Interesting though, and it does put him in a   
   different light.   
      
      
   Cheers   
      
   Kevin   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)