Heidegger might say:

Whether the bureaucracy manages our needs or the market disciplines us through neglect, both operate within the same metaphysical structure of control and efficiency that conceals any authentic relation to Being.

.

Reagan was saying that socialism inevitably nurtures a child-like mindset in the population. Ruthless apathy on the part of the government is essential to protect freedom, because it's only in that kind of climate that people retain their self reliance. It may be brutal, but this kind of neglect is actually a gift.

I agree with this — frank

Would you say the same thing about democratic capitalism with progressive safeguards? If there were an election between Reagan and Obama would you have chosen Reagan? Were Thatcherism and Reaganomics positive developments?

.

.

Both Adorno and Heidegger were extremely critical of the Weimar republic, with Heidegger basically coming out as fully authoritarian. — frank

In what do you think Heidegger grounded that authoritarianism? A number of thinkers influenced by Heidegger have offered their models of post-Heideggerian politics, in particular Deleuze, Jean-luc Nancy and Reiner Schumann. What they have in common is a politics no longer grounded in a transcendent authority (state, law, humanism, reason). Their politics is ontologically anarchic.

.

As a starting point, let's think about what Hayek said about the Weimar Republic: that democratic control over economic planning caused people to become reliant on the government, and this set the stage for acceptance of dictatorship. — frank

Could it make all the difference in the world if the words "democratic control" are replaced by "democratic constraints".

As a systems thinker, my argument is that constraints already guarantee the existence of freedoms. Whereas control has the goal only of suppressing them.

Control views causality as acting top-down to ensure what needs to happen does happen. It is indeed by nature dictatorial. As a hierarchy of order, every smallest local detail must be operating under the authority of global permission.

But constraints-based hierarchies have the opposite logic. The causality is balanced between a top-down guidance and a bottom-up creativity. Global limits are set, and what is then implicit is that all action within those bounds is made freely expressible. The system is co-created by the fact that the limits are tuned to create the kind of local actions that are desired. There is a feedback loop to keep the state of hierarchical order in a state that is dynamical and so capable of evolving.

So Hayek may have had a point about "too much top-down constraint". But that is just a complaint about a balance issue which is quite fixable in obvious ways in a democracy. A democracy is ideally a scalefree collection of its institutions. So the balance between constraints and freedoms are being dynamically adapted at all its levels from, say, corporations to corner shops, sports federations to local mah jong clubs, national public health standards to staff training in your local cafe.

Wherever one is acting in a society, one can know the logic of how democratic institution building is supposed to work.

A dictatorship is likewise a style of social organisation – a dominance hierarchy – that one can get used to finding everywhere in a society. The "dear leader" autocrat at the annual military parade, or your line-manager at work, or anywhere else one encounters a "might is right" view of social organisation.

So there is a double misstep here. A hierarchy should be fluid and not rigid. Emergent from its balance of constraints and freedoms, not fixed by its top-down chain of command.

And a hierarchy should be consistent in this fashion over all its scales of complexity or spatiotemporal reach. One should expect to see democracy everywhere, and autocracy nowhere, if living in the modern Enlightenment ideal of a society.

But autocracy is also something socially real in the sense that social hierarchies are naturally ordered in a "might is right" fashion. Social animals do run a dominance~submission game. They do have pecking orders and pack dynamics.

So humans do bring that genetic or ethological legacy with them when trying to do things in a more enlightened fashion. We have to recognise that and be able to deal with it at all levels too.

Trump is a good example. How is his dominance being met with so much submission? What is going on there if we want to diagnose the failures of politics. What is really breaking down in the modern democratic system that sees it sliding into its various forms of autocracy?

A systems view helps remind what a liberal democracy is suppose to be about. A society composed of its institutionalised interests. Not the rigid opposition of state and individual – the top versus the bottom – but instead the natural expectation of finding a dynamical hierarchical state of order obtaining at any level one can move in a society. A top and bottom always connected by the democratic feedback loop that establishes a collective state of purposeful action.

Notorious Nazi Heidegger
Whom Hitler had made all-aquiver
Tried hard to be hailed
Nazi-Plato, but failed
Then denied he had tried
With great vigor

Nice summary!

Thank you.

Reagan was saying that socialism inevitably nurtures a child-like mindset in the population. Ruthless apathy on the part of the government is essential to protect freedom, because it's only in that kind of climate that people retain their self reliance. It may be brutal, but this kind of neglect is actually a gift. — frank

Personally, I prefer capitalism to have socialist brakes, like in Australia, where there is free healthcare and a welfare safety net.

Our system isn’t perfect, and it’s too conservative for my tastes. I guess I’m a communitarian in the Michael Sandel sense of the word.

Heidegger, like any philosopher, can be taken up by anyone and twisted in any way you want. But where does his work stand politically, in itself? Who can say for certain? I think one would need a high level of expertise to answer that.

Was Hitler right-wing or extreme left? What exactly do we mean by left and right?

Journalist Andrew Kenny wrote a great piece on this many years ago. Here’s the opening:

Is Osama bin Laden left-wing or right-wing? How about Robert Mugabe? Who has a more left-wing approach to women’s sexuality: Pope John Paul or Hustler magazine? Consider Fidel Castro. He persecutes homosexuals, crushes trade unions, forbids democratic elections, executes opponents and criminals, is a billionaire in a country of very poor people and has decreed that a member of his family shall succeed him in power. Is Castro left-wing or right-wing? Explain your answer.

With the nazi element brought into view, Heidegger can be sharply distinguished from the "libertarian" formulations of Hayek, Reagan, Thatcher, etcetera who at least pretended to object to the exercise of state power. The unfolding of the Weimar Republic is interesting in that regard.

The "hunger games" aspect of the OP reminds me of N Land putting all the weakness of society on the results of democracy. For instance:

Democracy might begin as a defensible procedural mechanism for limiting government power, but it quickly and inexorably develops into something quite different: a culture of systematic thievery. As soon as politicians have learnt to buy political support from the ‘public purse’, and conditioned electorates to embrace looting and bribery, the democratic process reduces itself to the formation of (Mancur Olson’s) ‘distributional coalitions’ – electoral majorities mortared together by common interest in a collectively advantageous pattern of theft. Worse still, since people are, on average, not very bright, the scale of depredation available to the political establishment far exceeds even the demented sacking that is open to public scrutiny. Looting the future, through currency debauchment, debt accumulation, growth destruction, and techno-industrial retardation is especially easy to conceal, and thus reliably popular. Democracy is essentially tragic because it provides the populace with a weapon to destroy itself, one that is always eagerly seized, and used. Nobody ever says ‘no’ to free stuff. Scarcely anybody even sees that there is no free stuff. Utter cultural ruination is the necessary conclusion. — N Land, page 58

It is a delicious bit of argument but does not acknowledge how the results also fill the pockets of owners of markets and the owners of debt. The age-old question reemerges, who benefits?

Postscript: Using the language of N Land, Heidegger resembles a Cracker more than the other parts in the play.

.

My theory is this: authentic being emerges only in the awareness of one's own finitude. Consequently, the state, as a subject that doesn't keep its finitude in sight, finds itself inauthentic, constantly falling under the power of others' (and not its own) interests.

But that's my own theory (with elements of humor).

For Heidegger, I believe, something else was important. As you recall, the central idea was the oblivion of Being in the age of technology, as well as rootlessness and the loss of roots. Most pressing for him was the search for that very "Germanness" and its loss. Hence, in my view, his desire to find a true "beginning" for the German people and to rethink the role of the state in the technological age. Hence this immersion in linguistics, the search for, and a new rethinking of, oneself.

I'll keep that in mind. Thanks.

.

I'm moving on to a description of the Weimar Republic, — frank

Recognizing that, I hope you don't mind if I post some random comments before everyone moves on.

Was Hitler right-wing or extreme left? What exactly do we mean by left and right? — Tom Storm

The binary division between left and right is really very unhelpful. Dictatorships always seem to end up in much the same place - the same policies crop up again and again.

constantly falling under the power of others' (and not its own) interests. — Astorre

What interests of its own does the state have? Surely, it is always the creature of those interests that control political (and physical) power.

Hence, in my view, his desire to find a true "beginning" for the German people and to rethink the role of the state in the technological age. — Astorre

I can believe that. It could be his most fundamental mistake. The only beginning we ever have is where we actually are. Whether it is "true" or not - whatever that might mean - is beside the point.

Democracy might begin as a defensible procedural mechanism for limiting government power, but it quickly and inexorably develops into something quite different: a culture of systematic thievery. — N Land, page 58

"Thievery" implies property laws. Who makes those? Sadly, most regimes represent only some of the interests in their society and tend to prioritize their supporters in making the law. I can think of ways that might change, but they all turn on being able to recognize and allow for all the interests in society - especially those that are out of power. The problem is, everyone seems to think that everyone should be like themselves.

So humans do bring that genetic or ethological legacy with them when trying to do things in a more enlightened fashion. We have to recognise that and be able to deal with it at all levels too. — apokrisis

Yes. It is difficult. People think that democracy is power to the people. But it can only work if people understand how the system works and accept it. (That has to include recognizing people with different interests.)

Ruthless apathy on the part of the government is essential to protect freedom, because it's only in that kind of climate that people retain their self reliance. — frank

On the face of it, this is ridiculous. Self-reliance always means, in practice, self reliance within a social structure. Robinson Crusoe was a hero of self-reliance, but he brought his society with him - tools, skills, ways of thinking.

So Hayek may have had a point about "too much top-down constraint". But that is just a complaint about a balance issue which is quite fixable in obvious ways in a democracy. A democracy is ideally a scalefree collection of its institutions. So the balance between constraints and freedoms are being dynamically adapted at all its levels from, say, corporations to corner shops, sports federations to local mah jong clubs, national public health standards to staff training in your local cafe. — apokrisis

The catch with such criticisms of institutions is always how much is too much. The question is never answered. Which makes the remark, in effect, meaningless. I've never understood why such remarks are so rhetorically and politically effective.
You are quite right about the interaction between freedom and constraint. It's a great pity that so few people seem to understand it. Many of society's constraints are actually the scaffolding of its freedoms.

The system is co-created by the fact that the limits are tuned to create the kind of local actions that are desired. There is a feedback loop to keep the state of hierarchical order in a state that is dynamical and so capable of evolving. — apokrisis

That sounds very good. The question is how people might learn to accept and work with such systems. It doesn't seem to come "naturally".

Recognizing that, I hope you don't mind if I post some random comments before everyone moves on. — Ludwig V

No problem. :smile:

.

One of the greatest obstacles to emancipation is not conservatism or liberalism. It's the slave mentality: — frank

Are you seriously saying that the greatest obstacle to freeing slaves is their desire to remain slaves? We could sort that out quite quickly by asking them.
I'm sure that many of them would be very worried about the implications of such a change in their status. People quite easily get institutionalized and find it very difficult to face or manage life outside the social situations they are used to. That doesn't justify wrongful imprisonment with forced labour for life.

the expectation of adults that they should be cared for as if they're infants — frank

Are you saying that slaves expect to be cared for as if they are infants? It seems a bit implausible to me. Most slaves have to work very hard in very poor conditions and put up with a very low standard of living. No-one thinks that an appropriate way to treat infants.

It's the natural result of social conditions in which the soul is eclipsed by the mechanical social role. You are your occupation. You are your sexual orientation. You are your religious attitude. You are your political party. — frank

None of that has anything to do with slavery. We could, perhaps, have a useful discussion of that view of our society. Perhaps you could explain to me what the soul is.
Even if your description of society is correct, does that justify confining people to those classifications and to the ways of life that go with them? I don't think so.

It's through a few punches in the nose that a person learns to take care of themselves. This means punching is good. So I live with a contradiction, because if I could put a big bandage on the global human psyche to make it calm down and stop punching, I would — frank

Sometimes, people need clear constraints and firm discipline. Sometimes people need to be allowed to make their mistakes. Sometimes people need bandages and calm. It all depends on the circumstances. Take any one of those and apply them in the wrong circumstances, and you'll do more harm than good. But there are circumstances in which each of them is just the right thing to do.

What interests of its own does the state have? — Ludwig V

This is either naive idealism or a provocation

[A]uthentic being emerges only in the awareness of one's own finitude — Astorre

I.e. an infinitesmal moment of infinity (Q. Meillassoux) or temporal mode of eternal substance (B. Spinoza).

*

Fwiw, posts from a 2022 thread Hitler's Downfall

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/790451

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/790632

You are quite right about the interaction between freedom and constraint. It's a great pity that so few people seem to understand it. Many of society's constraints are actually the scaffolding of its freedoms. — Ludwig V

I would say that any small and stable community understands it from direct experience. But rapid growth and the rise of inequality erodes the cohesive fabric.

On the one hand, it is remarkable that institution building does scale. On the other, it is a problem when this is not central to the political discourse of a nation.

The US in particular seemed to be fabulously institutional and now just wants to burn it all down.

I think you're arguing that slave mentality is not a thing. That's cool. Maybe that would make another thread: Is slave mentality a thing?

.

The US in particular seemed to be fabulously institutional and now just wants to burn it all down. — apokrisis

The U.S. used to have mixed electorates within each party that included traditionalists opposed to government as well as those who valued the role of government both to constrain private excess and to foster innovation. Over the past 40 years the electorate has unmixed itself and segregated itself geographically.As a result, we are in a soft Civil War. Rural America wants to burn down the cities, which stand for strong institutions, and we city dwellers perceive ourselves threatened by foreign invaders.

As a result, we are in a soft Civil War. Rural America wants to burn down the cities, which stand for strong institutions, and we city dwellers perceive ourselves threatened by foreign invaders. — Joshs

Yes. Segregation is the word. From the outside, it does seem the US wants to tear itself culturally in two. And is frustrated by the fact it couldn’t be more integrated in being a geographical mix of the urban and the rural over all its scales.

The political issue would seem to be that the US seems fossilised by the glory of its own principled founding. It lacks the ability to evolve its system in response to changing times.

Perhaps its current convulsions are the only way new thinking can get established? On the burning ashes of its cherished constitution.

From the outside, it does seem the US wants to tear itself culturally in two. And is frustrated by the fact it couldn’t be more integrated in being a geographical mix of the urban and the rural over all its scales. — apokrisis

Are you really that far outside? It seems to me the urban-nonurban polarization threatening to tear the U.S. apart is at also work in Europe, the UK. , Israel, and many other parts of the world.

The political issue would seem to be that the US seems fossilised by the glory of its own principled founding. It lacks the ability to evolve its system in response to changing times. — apokrisis

Keep in mind it’s the principle of federalism that arose out that founding which will likely keep the U.S. from going the way of Hungary. The states are powerful centers of legal resistance against the national government. I don’t think it’s a matter of lacking the ability to evolve so much as never having needed to use that ability till now. In the past it was enough to rely on states’ rights to balance an overreaching federal government. But it may be necessary to begin thinking in terms of inter-urban alliances to fill in funding gaps and replace national institutions. The same may be said for cities like London, Paris, Berlin and Vienna.

In response to the efforts of the present administration, the typical role of State's rights to preserve the priorities of local power have been scrambling to preserve the public domain of institutions, as such.

The new Carpetbaggers are recruited from the place itself.