: No, i understand what I am saying, he may well have wanted a mroe humane world, however, his writings adopt a political position that is unconsciously at the least imperial.Well again we are talking with substantual hindsight but I appreciate the simply socialist position of Orwell a lot more than the Marxist "philosophy" of, for instance, the WSM with all it's shit about dialectics.
: Well, he specifically opposed said war, and then turned round and supported it to the hilt.
What a smart bloke.
: : It wasnt facist it was "objectively pro hitler"...
: Facsifist was his coining. And no, opposing the war was not objectively pro Hitler, thats a bifurcation fallacy. tell that to the Quakers mate.
Quakers dont frustrate wars in which their nation is engaged with their brand of pacificism, they are forbidden to kill or harm others (I like that consistant christianity) but they can support the war effort by working in hospitals etc.
I dont know what "bifurcation fallacy" is but it's like this presently you are free to oppose war, if Hitler or Mosley had conquered Britain you would not have that freedom EG the nine students of the white rose group who where beheaded and the Christians who asserted pacifism who suffered the same fate.
: But I am not left-wing, my policies are not that of the left wing, I oppose the whole order, not supporting one side of it.
Your mistake believeing that political science, theory, ideology and their definitions are part of the "whole order" not mine though I'm a left-winger, a socialist.
: Why your Grandad went to gfight is *UTTERLY* irrelevent. Why the masses of soldiers went to fight, is irrelevent, the only relevent fact is why the ruling class and its adminsitrators decided why they were going to fight- whatever excuses or motivations they gave to their victims are beside the point. We don't have wars if the working class want them, no matter how much, but we do when teh capitalist class decide they want one.
Fine for a rethorical debate mate but I'm afraid I cant engage, not interested.
: : Well they dont to me just as every decision people make isnt dictated by self-interest it isnt dictated by altruism or absolutist rationality either.
: Indeed, not all people, but when you are in charge of a country, you do not make decisions that will actively harm your national interest- that will always be the first consideration.
What has this to do with my definition of nationalism? Tory nationalism maybe but you know...
: Whose realism? by saying 'socialism is unrealistic' you make a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I never said that.
: : The representative delegation that you advocate could become the exact same thing on a smaller scale.
: No, because there would be no power of appointments given to delegates, and the executive would be directly elected. Further, voting on most matters effectively makes the people the legislature, overcoming through specificity the abstractedness of liberal formalism.
Yes and Marx was an unreconstructed Chartist I may add who thought the victories of deomocracy in England and US would lead to Socialism next polling day, if people wont participate in existing democracy I see no reason for them to do so in any sort of a rejigged system.
: : Nation STATES being the operative word, EG not simply nations/national identities.
: Even they were of slight existence, yes, tehre were peoples, but when they became nations, it changes.
I dont believe so the American Indians being the operative example.
: : What would you like to be irish, I'll allow you if you want.
: Somewhere on my Paternal Grandfathers side, mind, on the maternal grandmothers side is a former belfast Post-master and high-up in the orange lodge...hmmmmm
Oh, you'll not appreciate the invite to irishness then, it's all a big papal plot you know.
: : No work towards good government, then no, or next to no government.
: Right, working towards good government means working towards self-determination.
RD I dont see where the disagreement is here, this is what I'd advocate and I dont think having a national identity would scupper it.
: : I dont think it's all as deliberate and all as you make out, the elites that dominate compete to dominate each other as well.
: Yes, thats why they *need* the state to keep each other in line, and thats where wars begin.
Or is it where marxist rethoric begins?
: : That's funny I've been to Irish communities in Spain, US, England etc. and they've never claimed that the land they live in is part of the Irish Republic. Macavalianism, that is manipulative government with the input of conscious planning rulers, would have been consistant with your ideas about nationalism maybe not.
: Indeed, but their irishness is guaranteed by the political Space and existence of a place called ireland, the home-country, even if it is just a logical suppposition- like the Irish Americans....
Sure, so what?
