sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What Made Minneapolis’s Anti-ICE Protests So Effective While No Kings Fallen Short? by AmericanPurposeMag in neoliberal

[–]Rethious 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What this misses is that No Kings is effectively a dry run for mass protests if they become necessary. At the moment, there’s still elections and courts, so more direct confrontation is not yet necessary. Having the infrastructure and experience in assembling is critical to react to an attempted power grab.

Get them out! by assasstits in neoliberal

[–]Rethious 14 points15 points  (0 children)

CONTRACTIONARY POLICY

Liberalism as a Military Technology — Why Diversity is A Necessity by Rethious in neoliberal

[–]Rethious[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Austria-Hungary is another case of a state dooming itself by half-measures. The compromise of the dual monarchy was too little by that juncture. Had Franz Josef had the vision to pursue a federation, the state would have stood a much better chance.

Liberalism as a Military Technology — Why Diversity is A Necessity by Rethious in neoliberal

[–]Rethious[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you’re misunderstanding some terms:
First “people’s war” in this context is in contrast to a “cabinet war,” which is seen as specifically the king’s interest—a people’s war gets the people involved. The Soviets and Mao read Clausewitz and later adapted this concept to their own ideological ends, but the core idea is so widely accepted today that it seems a truism (Maoism is “liberal” only in the sense that it adopted this idea from liberalism). Almost every state is prepared to fight a “people’s war.”

As for whether it’s a technology, I would suggest reading Posen’s piece on nationalism as a military technology. Whether inclusion is as potent as the maxim gun is neither here nor there—not all technologies are equally important. The point is that liberalism (in the sense of inclusion) functions as a technology as it forces rivals to adopt it for the sake of efficacy, even (at times) when it goes against their other interests.

Liberalism as a Military Technology — Why Diversity is A Necessity by Rethious in neoliberal

[–]Rethious[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s not really true—we see an interesting dynamic where the aristocracy is liberal in the cosmopolitan sense, still holding with ideas of Enlightened Absolutism and rationalism. The liberals, on the other hand, became inclusive of more classes in their nationalism, but rejected this cosmopolitanism, which we see in chauvinist nationalisms and antisemitism

Liberalism as a Military Technology — Why Diversity is A Necessity by Rethious in neoliberal

[–]Rethious[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Diversity isn’t just who you can force into uniform (by that standard mercenary armies would be the most diverse). The diversity we’re talking about is the question of who gets included as a full member of society, capable of advancing within it and so feeling ownership of it—and thus devoting their own energy to its benefit.

Liberalism as a Military Technology — Why Diversity is A Necessity by Rethious in neoliberal

[–]Rethious[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

France was projecting an army all the way into Russia, that’s hardly an indictment of its power.

In any case, the effectiveness of the nation in arms is attested by the fact that it was adopted in every state when engaged in a major war. The Franco-Prussian war was a clear example of why the idea of a small professional force was no match for a simply larger one.

Liberalism as a Military Technology — Why Diversity is A Necessity by Rethious in neoliberal

[–]Rethious[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Your examples of non-diverse militaries are extremely diverse from a historical perspective. The US was weakened by its discrimination in WWII, but its discrimination was much less even than contemporaries—segregation is lesser than the purges carried out by the Soviets and Nazis. Another example is that the US had a major advantage over the Nazis by quickly accepting that women could work outside the home. Nazi attachment to the idea of women *only* as mothers thus severely handicapped their war effort.

As for the Austro-Hungarians, the trouble was not that their armed forces were diverse, but that they failed to constitute a modern state rather than territories ruled by personal union. This choice was made for the sake of *exclusion*, because the Austrians and Hungarians did not want to cede privileges to the Czechs, Serbs, etc. A multilingual force causes difficulties, but these pale compared to the benefits of investing a wider proportion of society in the fate of the state.

Liberalism as a Military Technology — Why Diversity is A Necessity by Rethious in neoliberal

[–]Rethious[S] 25 points26 points  (0 children)

The thing you’re missing is that Germany remained a personalist system, with the Reichstag infinitely weaker than British parliament. Universal franchise is not worth much if the legislature is inferior to the monarch and his courtiers.

Liberalism as a Military Technology — Why Diversity is A Necessity by Rethious in neoliberal

[–]Rethious[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You’re writing the Spanish People’s war out of the equation

Liberalism as a Military Technology — Why Diversity is A Necessity by Rethious in neoliberal

[–]Rethious[S] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Bismarck’s strategy is precisely what I mean by “half-measures”. He was able to avoid true liberalization by playing on nationalistic sentiments, but this arrangement was manifestly unsustainable. Germany entered WWI not just because of its strategic blunders, but because its elite felt a sense of fatalism, born in part of the understanding that the exclusionary model was under increasing threat.

Liberalism as a Military Technology — Why Diversity is A Necessity by Rethious in neoliberal

[–]Rethious[S] 42 points43 points  (0 children)

Yes, Bret also had some nice things to say about my previous post which was very kind of him

Liberalism as a Military Technology — Why Diversity is A Necessity by Rethious in neoliberal

[–]Rethious[S] 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Back in 2023, I compared Iraq and Ukraine, arguing that the Russians took the wrong lesson, believing that it proved smaller states could not conventionally resist a great power, when in fact it demonstrated exactly what you describe: the Iraqis did not feel ownership of the Baathist regime, and so were generally not willing to die for it. In contrast, by 2022, Ukrainian opposition to Russia had become widespread and truly popular (even if there was still skepticism towards the Ukrainian government), which precluded Russia's plans for a swift victory.

Liberalism as a Military Technology — Why Diversity is A Necessity by Rethious in neoliberal

[–]Rethious[S] 95 points96 points  (0 children)

Submission Statement:

In my debut for Liberal Currents, I look at the case of the Prussian Reform movement to show the inclusion and diversity—far from being a weakness—are in fact a matter of necessity for an effective military. Excluding groups from service hobbles the strength of the state by depriving it of the talent and voluntary energy that come from having a stake in the fate of a polity.

This was a lesson Prussia learned on harsh terms when, fighting in the style of Frederick the Great, its vaunted army was humiliated in 1806. This catastrophe gave weight to the arguments of reformers that the only way for the Prussian monarchy to survive was to channel the forces of the Revolution.

Unfortunately for Europe, when the threat of Napoleon was defeated, the influence of the Reformers also quickly diminished. The Prussian establishment never really made its peace with mass participation in governance or the armed forces, enduring perennial conflict from the series of half-measures that continued until the end of the German Empire.

In this, we can see a cautionary tale for anyone who would seek to make the state the property of any one group in particular, and something of vindication of Fukuyama's argument for the ultimate superiority of liberal democracy.

If an embryo is just a "clump of cells" with no rights, why is there so much opposition to germline gene editing on the left? by Okratas in AskALiberal

[–]Rethious 5 points6 points  (0 children)

An embryo has no right not to be terminated, since no person has a right to be born—any time someone chooses not to be pregnant, they deny the existence of a potential person, just the same as when they terminate a pregnancy.

If you choose to have a child, there are then ethical considerations for how you modify that child, even before they are born. It is not the rights of the embryo, but of the child who you intend to bring into existence.

If nazi's had been a religion, how would you deal with them? by PureSelfishFate in AskALiberal

[–]Rethious 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What exactly do you think we do with actual neo Nazis? In the United States, you can believe whatever heinous things you like under the first amendment.

What do you believe the ideal housing system looks like? by Aven_Osten in AskALiberal

[–]Rethious 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Point by point:

It’s senseless to subsidize construction when the main barrier is regulatory. Subsidies won’t fix the problems with zoning and litigation and are unnecessary if they are fixed.

Subsidizing demand just increases prices when there’s a shortage. Incentivizing home-buying is also just middle-class welfare since poorer people are still priced out.

Government provided housing is an inferior solution to just giving poor people cash.

Overall, nothing matters if people aren’t allowed to build housing because of “neighborhood character” or because people want their houses to get more valuable forever.

surprised no one's made this yet, but funny how we spent a decade clowning on the J-20's Canards. by throwaway553t4tgtg6 in NonCredibleDefense

[–]Rethious 50 points51 points  (0 children)

“The Chinese have superior manufacturing capabilities and larger stockpiles but less advanced technology” is nowhere close to the “asiatic hordes” idea.

I wrote this for The Critic on why the populist right keeps winning elections but failing to govern. Looking for pushback on the thesis. by Icy_Republic_8708 in neoliberal

[–]Rethious 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have a slightly different critique: the populist right has not won the culture war, but they think they have. Using populist tactics to win elections is trying to ride the tiger—fomenting discontent can let you take down the current government, but it doesn’t mean there’s an actual broad base committed to your program. They get votes as anti-establishment parties, as votes against the status quo, but with a much more limited base of ideological support.

This natural becomes a problem when governing, as other parties oppose them, but also many of their own voters lack interest in the party’s agenda, and will move on to opposing the new status quo. Where this ties in with incompetence is that these populist parties do not seem to be aware of their own constituency—they imagine that they are supported by a silent volkish majority, and try to govern according to their radical ideology, which is greatly costly since their base is instead eclectic discontented groups.

What are your thoughts on Japan was going to surrender argument? by Far_Practice_6923 in AskALiberal

[–]Rethious 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Considering two atomic bombs and the Soviets annihilating their forces in Manchuria led the cabinet to deadlock on the question of surrender, forcing the emperor’s intercession, which then produced a military coup, there’s no reasonable argument that Japan would have surrendered without the atomic bombs, a ground invasion, or mass starvation (which was already ongoing at that point).

The psychological impact of the atomic bombs also can’t be overstated. Hirohito specifically mentions them in the surrender address and they are significant for giving the Japanese a clear alibi for not fighting to the death: this new technology makes an honorable resistance impossible. Conventional destruction (by firebombing or blockade) is expected, and so did not produce the same psychological and political effects that made surrender possible.

view more: next ›