Why does the far-right like so much the 300 of Sparta? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2024, 04:16:37 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Why does the far-right like so much the 300 of Sparta? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Why does the far-right like so much the 300 of Sparta?  (Read 1301 times)
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,152
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
« on: June 14, 2020, 05:45:25 PM »

I mean, it was literally a militaristic totalitarian state built on the subjugation and ritual massacre of ethnic minorities. The connection with far-right ideologies isn't too hard to see.

The question is why anyone who isn't far-right would view ancient Sparta with anything but horror and contempt.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,152
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2020, 10:13:20 PM »

The question is why anyone who isn't far-right would view ancient Sparta with anything but horror and contempt.

Well, historically it was viewed very positively by the radical left as well, going back to Rousseau. Very much the preferred Polis of the Soviet Union. But, again, that is not so surprising!

Oh, of f**king course. Everything awful about the left since 1789 can be traced back to Rousseau, it seems.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,152
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2020, 01:20:42 AM »

I mean, I don't disagree with everything Rousseau ever said. His radical criticism of private property is genuinely refreshing to see from a philosopher of this era, and that's something he deserves credit for. The rest, though? His political theory, while grounded in sound basic principles, devolves into nebulous abstract nonsense as soon as tries to derive anything from them (try to find a single philosopher who can explain what the ever-loving f**k the "general will" is). His view of history is a nakedly reactionary secular adaptation of the story of the Fall (and we've been over my thoughts about that). His moral philosophy, flowing from that, is the kind of naive naturalism that even in his time was well-known to be a philosophical dead end. So yeah, good on him for being an egalitarian (at least in terms of class - he was all too comfortable with sexist gender roles), but there are plenty of better egalitarians to use as inspirations.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 12 queries.