 |
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:25
|
|
Ok my latest  BNP  thread but hell they deserve it. Decided to exercise the old grey matter and write an article to see if I am still physically capable of doing teh sentence thing. Probably full of grammatical, punctual and semantic errors, feel free to discuss those as well as the article itself... feedback is always good and apparently I hear talk of politics in these parts.... 
******
Populism and Nazism
By me
Often, it has been said that the British National Party, and their ilk on the far right, are Nazi parties. Certainly their history of racism, terrorism, anti-Semitism and thuggery greatly supports that view, but now they claim they are not, on the grounds that they do not worship Hitler and apparently have no hatred for Jews. Granted. However this is unsatisfactory for me as I aim to demonstrate. To me, concepts such as “Nazism” or “discrimination”, are not discrete terms applied in a blissfully naïve retrospect to horrendous periods of human history, they are instead continuous and contextual; applying in degrees and measures. To ascertain this in order to determine whether we can apply the definition “Nazi”, with its horrific potential and associated ruin, we need to boil down the concept into its constituent parts. The most obvious aspect, at least to me, being of Jewish descent, is the anti-Semitism.
Who can fail to be aware of the inordinate suffering and death of the holocaust, and the near-destruction of one of Europe’s most prodigious cultures? And yet, anti-Semitism is a specific term: a direct prejudice and contempt against Jews. If, contrary to Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”, we are to accept that Nazism is a wider notion with political and social ramifications instead of mere racism, then limiting the definition to anti-Semitism would be like saying that it is necessarily German. And yet there were people who identify themselves as Nazis, both then and now of other nationalities, from Europe and beyond.
The anti-Semitism of Nazi Germany seems to be dependent on circumstance; the convenient and latent prejudice in Europe against Jews at the time that climaxed through the likes of Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels and co. If Nazism was the engine for the realisation of this hatred, then what was it? Perhaps looking at the word itself may provide an answer. Nazi is an abbreviation of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or National Socialist German Workers Party – National Socialism. At last, a working definition! I shall explore this interplay of Nationalism and Socialism shortly, but perhaps now it would be prudent to identify the basic trait of the likes of the BNP, who claim not to be Nazi. Their nationalistic sentiment is unquestionable, but their frequent attacks on those on the “left” seem to confound one half of being a Nazi! The answer can be found in a famously distinctive characteristic of such parties; their tendency to populism.
The appeal to the masses; attempting to achieve power through popularity which is realised through policies and rhetoric that suit the popular mood, or whatever opinion happens to be fashionable is not a new concept, nor is it confined to those parties on the fringes. One might well say it goes hand-in-hand with democracy itself. Indeed, Populist elements can be identified in all political campaigns in the West, great and small. I can think of no better demonstration than the recent presidential election in the USA, where traditionally the party with the support of churchgoers is almost guaranteed to win. The Republican’s pretension of being “moral” through its denial of rights to gay people and women over their own relationships and bodies helped to secure those votes, and thus victory.
One sees those seeking to gain power through populism therefore railing against what is perceived to be elitist or aristocratic, we see rhetoric such as “the ivory tower intellectual elite”, “the left/liberal media”, “they think they know better than you” and the like. The drastic critique of the status quo is not, it should be noted, a characteristic solely of those on the far right. Forming the basis of Marxist principles also, it should be noted that such distinctions of “left” and “right” are merely economic, whereas political spectra are far more fluid. The anti-establishment rote is performed in an effort to appeal to a popular sentiment of oppression or subjugation of the masses at the hands of the elite, with the aim of validating the individual’s right to self-determination through that particular political party.
A similarly used and equally ancient tactic is simply to appeal to the fears and prejudices of the people. The psychologist Stanley Milgram notes that obedience “is a deeply ingrained behavior tendency, indeed a potent impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct. (1)” With a large group of discontented people this is like a spark to a tinderbox; it does not always require a prominent individual to cause this fear. A self-sustaining anger and suspicion in many communities is sufficient, and then it is simply a question of obedience to popular opinion. We see this increasing in Britain with a moral panic regarding immigration. Urban legends, uninformed hysteria and a need for a moral “baddie” against which to band together and fight make it exceptionally easy for the populist to associate himself with the interests of the masses and identify an enemy in a different culture, race or even an alien philosophy.
In effect this reduces the collective “span of sympathy” of the group being courted by the Populist, such that an “us” and “them” mentality is formed. The group tendency then is to consider solely the perceived negativity or amorality of their victims and not the underlying narrative that caused that perception.
We might, thinking as individuals, stand a better chance of doing so, a chance that sadly decreases when one in authority says otherwise. The new enemy can then be made to appear somehow less human, less worthy, less good. Reveal that the baddies are attacking the goodies, often by amplifying a relatively small indiscretion (the more repugnant the better) into a perception of major deviancy or malevolence and the group will gladly fall into line behind their new popular champion, as revealed by the likes of Hermann Goering (2). This is the ultimate conclusion and aim of every populist.
Populism, along with democracy, is at first glance noble in appearance; governing for and by the people as a whole but the whole concept rests upon the assumption “that which is popular is correct”. This is a peculiar assumption and is indeed a fallacy (argumentum ad populum/bandwagon fallacy). It should be self-evident that this is so, the child bullied for not following a particular fashioned is comforted with this fact, and yet will grow up being enticed with the same canard. Semantic word games determine whether or not such a falsehood is taken seriously, and noble lies are built upon it.
Such lies are used in marketing; populism is, after all, empowering for the masses. It encourages unity in the face of something supposed to be an enemy. One could quite easily say that it encourages a kind of exclusive socialism. Certainly the egalitarianism with an anti-elite attitude, brutal utilitarianism never mind the good of the economy and a belief in the graciousness and superiority of the group are indicative of socialist tendencies. Further to this is almost an extension of the witch-hunt vigilante morality described earlier, as a conclusion of the utilitarianism a totalitarian attribute is fostered for all. Never mind the sufferings that can be inflicted on those unlucky enough to be the victims of the populist, people themselves can be manipulated into happily surrendering their liberties when they feel threatened, as described by the prophetic Herr Goering. That the state must come before the individual is a common thread in totalitarian and extreme socialist governments and that leads onto nationalism, the second component of Nazism.
It should be evident thus far, and from history, how populism leads to nationalism. After all, if a populist claims as he must that he represents the needs of the people, the logical group for him to appeal to is that with overt patriotism. Of course there are those who are not so easily seduced but no matter, obedience always comes after the application of a big enough stick. Fault lines of socio-economic class are insufficient if a populist is to have a greater appeal, for the less understanding one group has of another, the less “local” the neighbour, the easier it is for people to think it an enemy. The artificial boundaries of trade and economy become rigid and prescriptive to the masses, the fluidic boundaries of culture become dogmatic and natural boundaries of geography and a person’s appearance become hailed as a superior island in an ocean of opportunists and barbarians.
This nationalism is another fallacy; that “it is sweet and proper to die for one’s country” to quote the Roman poet Horace, seems absurd to me when that country is nothing more than a manmade political entity, a geographic location and a culture that changes every day without need of a single death or blinded eye. Nationalists respond to this by claiming that it is reasonable to wish to defend and fight for ones you love; family and friends for instance and with that I have no contention. However to go to say that they love their country and culture and their brethren within seems nonsensical. Unless one has knowledge of everyone, how is it possible to love them - to wish to go to such extremes, and how more so than one who happens to be on the other side of one of those artificial boundaries?
One should note an interesting irony in the people and those who would be their popular leaders. The leaders, or those with the loudest voices, are able to wield power by changing peoples’ opinion, yet their power is limited by that opinion. No matter the style of government, an executive can only go so far without the support of the people. In which case one should not differentiate between those in power and the people themselves, they are the same entity, it is merely incidental who is trusted as the leader. When the die is thrown, whatsoever face is drawn is still a part of the die. Thanks to human nature as previously discussed, the two cannot function without each other, they are an organism. Perhaps then one face in six is the Nazi face, proportional to the degree of populism.
It can be seen here that Nationalism and Socialism are not mutually exclusive. Through the device of populism, Nazism perpetuates itself by distinguishing between groups and ultimately nations; appealing to patriotism within a group to bond it cohesively which manifests itself in socialism, but whose zealous conclusion is somewhat more communistic. We see this in the history of Nazi Germany. Ignore subsidiary economic differences, and Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia bear an uncanny resemblance! Individual freedoms are limited in favour of totalitarianism, groups deemed enemies of the state are ruthlessly persecuted and the state exercises a tight control of propaganda in order to manipulate the population. Socialism married to nationalism has another disturbing consequence. To consider other groups to be attacking your own, and that yours is worth defending, requires that those groups in what is purported to be their essence, are inferior to your own. In relative terms, this means that the populist purports his group to be superior, breeding national superiority, cultural hegemony and racial supremacy. The consequences of these are obvious, frightening, and proven.
So what does all of this mean? Firstly, it proves that the BNP et al. are, despite their protestations, Nazis. Undoubtedly these claims to the contrary are an effort to appear respectable and present a civilised façade, underneath which their members’ belligerence is cloaked until, heaven forbid, they come to power and realise their barbarism. It shows that Nazism is not a German issue, nor a Jewish issue, though National Socialism should never be allowed to escape the guilt for the iniquity of the Holocaust. It is a weapon, though its target changes with the times.
It shows that National Socialism is disturbingly human, deeply rooted in human nature and society, waiting to realise itself should the situation arise. Running in symbiosis between people and leaders, and patriotism and collectivism it relies on and manipulates our fundamental fears and insecurities, as well as the dangerous situation that invariably occurs when stupid people form large groups. It also shows that political freedoms in society are very much a double-edged sword; democracy has the potential to become a slippery slope to Nazism, seen in the failings of the Weimar Republic (in the author’s opinion, the most perfect democracy seen thus far in World history) which lead to the rise of Hitler.
How does one ensure that Nazism and its associated horrors can never be allowed to rise to power again, in whatever manifestation it may take? Resorting to the tactics of intimidation and totalitarianism in order to prevent such a thing is hypocritical and unbecoming of a society that claims to be civilised and just. No, all it requires is vigilance. Those the BNP love so much to vilify, the “ivory tower intellectuals”: historians, philosophers, sociologists, psychologists, are the ones best placed to understand this threat from within ourselves, and education - understanding of Nazism will go some way to prevent people being enticed by it. We must also stop teaching children that it started with the Treaty of Versailles and died in 1945, and stop turning the recognised faces of it into folk devils. That belies the very humanity of Nazism, a potential that exists within all of us. Denial of it, either through fear or an effort to defend the sensibilities of those that suffered by it to my mind is a dangerous route to take.
Having said that, special mention must be made of its most long-suffering victims, the Jews. A people who have suffered long and hard and the hands of Nazism are, it is reasonable to say, the ones who must take the lead in being vigilant against it. This will post a difficult challenge for Jewish nationalists; those who claim that Judaism is inextricably linked with Zionism are making a hypocritical error in my opinion that, instead of honouring the suffering of the holocaust, will (or perhaps already has) serve to repeat it.
Will this vigilance happen? Will the tragedy of Nazism be repeated? Perhaps the answer to the second question depends on the answer to the first.
Refs.
(1) http://home.swbell.net/revscat/perilsOfObedience.html
(2) http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6ring
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
IMO, severe economic distress and a defeat in a recent war are two major prerequisites for a Fascist takeover. Fascism only thrives when large numbers of people are financially insecure AND have/feel reason to fear neighboring countries or minorities within their own country. Without those two factors, no Fascist party will ever grow to be anything more than a fringe group, as the majority of people in the society are too secure to want such a radical change.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
in my opinion, one persons mind bastardised by them is one too many. |
That's just it... its your opinion. Parties like the BNP don't spontaneously pop up into the world without reason, just because these people were born "evil." There are sociological reasons why people would form a party like the BNP. I'd say that feeling economically threatened by a changing economy and having their traditional way of life threatened by mass immigration are two large reasons why people would support such a party. They can't "bastardize" anyone's mind if that person doesn't have some basic reason to identify with said party in the first place.
Another thing to keep in mind is that there are various degrees of racism, and not all forms of racism leads to genocide. The German Nazis are simply the most extreme form of racist Fascist/Nazis that have ever been politically significant. There are other, more mild forms of racism. I could be wrong (I'm not from the UK), but the BNP isn't calling for the eradication of other races (as opposed to some leading Nazis, like Hitler, who explicitly wanted to exterminate the Jew from the world). The BNP is more of a segregationist/expulsionist group. They don't have any particular issues with the immigrants if they would stay in their own country.
Other examples of racist populist segregationalist would be Malcom X. As far as I remember he didn't want to exterminate the whites, he just wanted blacks and whites to live seperately. That's racism, but a lesser degree. You can be racist without being an exterminationist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
I would also add that communists |= Stalinists. Stalin was a national socialist (see article). While you could argue he was a communist, communism is so much more than that.... |
Why is communism "so much more than that?" What makes it more than "left wing" populism?
I disagree that Stalin was a National Socialist. He was a totalitarian Communist who, when the Nazis invaded, realized that appealing to ethnic Russian nationalism was a more effective way to get the Russian people to fight than was trying to get people to fight for the idea of Communism. The USSR wasn't a nation in the ethnic sense.
Ceaucescu, head of Communist Romania (however you spell it) was a National Socialist (maybe more properly a National Communist). He explictly stated that the basis of his government was based on Ethnic Romanian grounds, wanted a Romania for Romanians, ruthlessly tried to Romanianize the Hungarians and remaining Germans in Romania, claimed direct descendancy from ancient Romanian heros, instituted pro-natal policies. Stalin didn't do anything like those things.
Stalin's evil can't be pinned on him by calling him a Nazi. He was a different creature.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
That's just it... its your opinion. Parties like the BNP don't spontaneously pop up into the world without reason, just because these people were born "evil." There are sociological reasons why people would form a party like the BNP. I'd say that feeling economically threatened by a changing economy and having their traditional way of life threatened by mass immigration are two large reasons why people would support such a party. They can't "bastardize" anyone's mind if that person doesn't have some basic reason to identify with said party in the first place.
|
You're bastardising my argument and don't bother playing the relativism card. My argument is precisely that Nazism has sociological causes. It's a determinable phenomenon with deep roots in human nature. If you'd have read my piece you'd have understood that is what I am saying.
As for my "bastardising people's minds" quip, I was referring to the obedience situation that occurs in these situations. Would it not be reasonable to say that men who could cold-heartedly shoot women and children as they stood over their graves had their minds bastardised? If you disagree, I recommend getting your head examined.
Learning in ethics, civility, "morality" precluded by obedience, that's bastardisation if anything is.
quote:
Another thing to keep in mind is that there are various degrees of racism, and not all forms of racism leads to genocide. The German Nazis are simply the most extreme form of racist Fascist/Nazis that have ever been politically significant. There are other, more mild forms of racism. I could be wrong (I'm not from the UK), but the BNP isn't calling for the eradication of other races
|
Correct, but irrelevant. Manifestos and party policies are a mere pretense to get elected, as I said, a façade to appear civilised and reasonable. If you think a party is going to follow its own manifesto when in power you need to study history. Put someone or worse, a group, in power and they'll inevitably follow their own inclinations instead of what they promised in order to get elected (manipulating the people again).
You can see this in their rhetoric. Go to the BNP's website and you will read articles that are consistent with their policies but look deeper. The undertones of racism and xenophobia present, and look at the articles themselves. I believe they have been featuring recently the case of a white teenager murdered in a racist attack. Repugnant as this was, the BNP are doing what is known as "deviancy amplification", whereby (as I said) a relatively minor indiscretion such as an individual murder is made out to be a major problem and the culprits made out to be indicative of the particular group under attack.
I am not saying that if the BNP ever achieve power that a holocaust *will* happen; but that is rather like two bone-dry forests, one of which has burned and the other hasn't.
More disturbing is the tendency to militarism, racism though latent is closeted and manicured, usually in the form of national/cultural hegemony. Perfect example... USA post 9/11. Tens of thousands of civilians dead as a result. Just because shower rooms and Germans weren't involved, does that make this any less horrific?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
Why is communism "so much more than that?" What makes it more than "left wing" populism?
|
What would make "left wing" populism different to right wing populism? Economics... free market vs. controlled economy? But populism tends to nationalism and totalitarianism so national socialism (controlled economy). But eliminate the populism, nationalism and totalitarianism aren't necessary to communist/socialist systems, for example, consider libertarian socialism. As an example, the Liberal Democrats in the UK, and they can hardly be described as populists.
quote:
I disagree that Stalin was a National Socialist. He was a totalitarian Communist who, when the Nazis invaded, realized that appealing to ethnic Russian nationalism was a more effective way to get the Russian people to fight than was trying to get people to fight for the idea of Communism. The USSR wasn't a nation in the ethnic sense.
|
It was a nation in the political sense. However all of your points there are answered in my article so if you wish to continue it would be advisable to actually read it, since it includes the reasoning for Stalin being a national socialist. However I shall provide a teaser .
Nationalist? Yes
Socialist? Yes
Ergo, Stalin was a national socialist. The populism cements my argument.
quote:
He explictly stated that the basis of his government was based on Ethnic Romanian grounds, wanted a Romania for Romanians, ruthlessly tried to Romanianize the Hungarians and remaining Germans in Romania, claimed direct descendancy from ancient Romanian heros, instituted pro-natal policies. Stalin didn't do anything like those things.
|
Oh come on, surely you're not serious. Apples and oranges. How is possible to say that these actions are necessary to being a national socialist, as opposed to Stalin with regard to, say, forced migrations, pogroms and nationalism?
quote:
Stalin's evil can't be pinned on him by calling him a Nazi. He was a different creature.
|
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...411#post3613411
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
I read through your article (merely skimmed it last time). I'm not trying to be rude, but you asked for a critique. No offense intended:
You're basically making the argument that any group that exhaults nationalism is, in the end, going to be totalitarian. Also, any totalitarian regime must by definition be nationalist. Its a slippery slope argument. You also think that its ludicrous that anyone would be proud of their country or culture, let alone willing to die to protect something that they treasure. Are all patriotic people inherently totalitarian in your mind? Are they waiting for a populist demagouge to pull the hatred from them?
I still disagree with you about Stalin's regime. Its one thing to use nationalism as a tool. Its another thing to be a nationalist movement. Being obedient to the state and being a nationalist aren't exactly the same thing. Ideology matters when examining polities. I stand by my differences between the USSR (NOT Russia!) and Romania.
What are your thoughts on the DNVP? The German National People's Party, which was the party of conservative nationalists in Weimar Germany? They weren't totalitarian, nor were they populist. They were Nationalist conservatives, and they headed German governments in the later half of the 1920s, while the Nazis. It was only after their failure to solve problems that the Nazis started to appeal to the masses... the Nazis didn't start getting significant votes until 1929 (read "The Nazi Voter" by Thomas Childers) The Nazis were the populists. According to your definitions, how can there be a Nationalist movement that does not involve populism?
I disagree with you about Nationalist leaders not standing by their political manifestos.What's your evidence of this? Hitler did what he said he would do.
On e of the Nazis "campaign promises" was to end democracy (to destroy 1789, as they called it); no one was surprised when this happened. I bet the BNP would do largely what it says it would, and I have no evidence to believe the contrary. What makes you think that the BNP would install a totalitarian regime, or even wants to?
I agree that "populism" plays a large part in Fascism (who couldn't agree with that?), but so what? Avoid populism? Ruthlessly uphold individualism? Discourage cultural pride? Populism does not create nationalism. I think nationalism comes from a type of espirit de corp, a feeling of belonging that most people naturally develop to some degree or another. I don't see anything wrong with it, so far as it doesn't get out of control.
But I do not disagree with you that populist nationalist appeals, among other things, helped fuel the rise of the Nazi party. That's pretty much indisputable.
The article reads to me like a politcal tract justifying and rationalizing calling the BNP Nazis, rather than an indepth analysis. There was no discussion of other possible interpretations, just a this=this=this progression couched in largely unmentioned assumptions, with very few examples to provide illumination. However, I do realize that its an article, not a term paper.
I believe that the BNP are what they say they are: Nationalists, who happen to have populist tendencies. You're taking a leap forward and saying that having that combination, in whatever degree, automatically makes it reasonable to call that party a Nazi party. Nazis have obvious historical connotations, as you are well aware, connotations that you wish to exploit. Its a good way to demonize a party you despise. But on the whole, I think that saying that since the BNP is Nationalist and has populist tendencies that they are Nazis is a stretch.
You can be Nationalist and have populist tendencies without being a Nazi. Nazism is the extreme point on the spectrum, and there's more to it than just nationalism and populism. Fascism is probably the most difficult political philosophy to pin down, and Nazism is its most complicated variant. Just stating that Nationalism with populist tendencies = Nazism is too great of a leap.
One example: Nazi nationalism, at its height, was quasi-mystical and cult-like, something that regular conservative nationalists (or typical patriotic people) would find alienating. It went beyond saying that German culture was great, or even that it was better than the rest of the world (that type of thinking would best fit 2nd Reich German Nationalists, nationalists who weren't totalitarian by any stretch. Authoritarian, yes. Totalitarian, no.) Nazi nationalism exhalted a mystical Aryan race that, through the Nazi party's leadership, would re-emerge out of the German people once the untermenschen were removed. This race was destined to conquer the world.It was, as some have termed it, a racial revolution. Have you ever watched Triumph of the Will? It basically turned a Party rally into a religious ceremony. To understand it better, you need to have a good grasp of the historical context in which the party developed. That was a central tenet of Nazism. Is it reflected in the BNP? Not from what I can see.
It could be more useful to compare the BNP to the Italian Fascists. However, the problem that the BNP is railing against (non-European immigration into Europe) is an issue that doesn't really have many parallels to the 20th century nationalists or fascist movements. Maybe it could be fruitful compairing them to the old American Party (The Know-Nothing Party) of the 1830s. However, that would takes the rhetorical edge out of your article, and its obvious that the main reason for this article is to justify the rhetorical device of calling the BNP Nazis.
Last edited by Wycoff on 10-02-2005 at 06:49
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Oh come on, surely you're not serious. Apples and oranges. How is possible to say that these actions are necessary to being a national socialist, as opposed to Stalin with regard to, say, forced migrations, pogroms and nationalism?
|
You're assuming that National Socialism is the only system that can create forced migrations and pogroms. Therefore, to you, any system in which those things do happen are, by definition, Nazi. That isn't true; the ideology of the state is important. Just because two things look the same superficially, it does not mean that they are the same. USSR does not equal Nazi Germany, even though The Nazis and the Soviets each slaugthered millions of people.
Last edited by Wycoff on 10-02-2005 at 06:38
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
You're basically making the argument that any group that exhaults nationalism is, in the end, going to be totalitarian. Also, any totalitarian regime must by definition be nationalist. Its a slippery slope argument.
|
Not so. The argument is that it tends to it, certainly a suspension of liberties on the auspices of utilitarianism is characteristic and demonstrated. Consider the PATRIOT act.
quote:
You also think that its ludicrous that anyone would be proud of their country or culture, let alone willing to die to protect something that they treasure.
|
Indeed I do. But then patriotism is an inherently idiotic ideal (it relies on idiocy if you define it as synonymous with stupidity; ignorance to ones span of sympathy... hence the phrase "closed minded").
quote:
Are all patriotic people inherently totalitarian in your mind? Are they waiting for a populist demagouge to pull the hatred from them?
|
Your questions are loaded and misleading. Is patriotism inherently totalitarian? No. Does it tend to totalitarianism via populism and socialism? Yes. Are the patriots more vulnerable than non-patriots to populism, particularly with a nationalistic application? Naturally so.
quote:
Its one thing to use nationalism as a tool. Its another thing to be a nationalist movement. Being obedient to the state and being a nationalist aren't exactly the same thing. I stand by my differences between the USSR (NOT Russia!) and Romania.
|
I disagree because to make your argument you need to show in an essentialist fashion a style of government is inherently different from the tools that it uses. I doubt this can be done, since it implies that a party is nothing more than its policies by manifesto, and it denies the Machiavellian exercise of power. If on the other hand you consider rulers and ruled as a symbiotic entity, distinguishing between nationalism as a device and a descriptive "ism" becomes meaningless.
If your distinction between Nazism and Stalinism is that one has nationalism in the title, while both use it as a device, then we're not going to get very far. I could happily call myself Lady Marseilles XI of Benevolent Butchery, but that would no more describe me than any other name, if we are to judge on historical actions and events and not intent. Or would you say that Hitler was benevolent because that's how he described himself.
To summarise that point you distinguish between being a nationalist and obeying the state. My argument is that there is no difference between the two. I assume you are implying that one is happy to obey, one is not? We all act in our own "idiotic" (sic; the Freudian sense, not the derisory) interest (my key supposition of course), that one takes an action implies that it was through the prospect of net gain, i.e. don't do this and you will die ergo one does it. Whether or not people agree with that is incidental. This is of course academic, how willing and happy the people are to obey the leader is indicative of his use of populist rhetoric and how far he can go with the people's support accordingly. Undoubtably many **** this up, but I think it ludicrous that we might describe Nazism a measure of successful dictatorship. 
quote:
I disagree with you about Nationalist leaders not standing by their political manifestos.What's your evidence of this? Hitler did what he said he would do. I bet the BNP would do largely what it says it would, and I have no evidence to believe the contrary.
|
When in power people are bound by different forces that those that determined their actions on their rise to power. In Hitlers case the former case would be the populism, but he made little reference to his economic policy in his rhetoric except a promise to put bread on the table and reduce unemployment. This is quite vague and indeed describes what he needed to do to maintain his power. The rest, the hatred and what have you, could be regarded as more "honest" for his intentions. Did he stick to them? No. He went beyond them, to my knowledge there was no mention of a mass extermination in the years 1923 - 33.
Getting power and keeping it are different things, when one has it one is responsible. It's easy to get support through effective campaigning but that doesn't run a society, and you'd have to campaign very hard to stay in power if your people are starving no matter what style of government.
quote:
Avoid populism? Ruthlessly uphold individualism? Discourage cultural pride? Populism does not create nationalism. I think nationalism comes from a type of espirit de corp, a feeling of belonging. I don't see anything wrong with it, so far as it doesn't get out of control.
|
In an ideal world, yes. In an ideal world, we would be educated enough to have pride in what is real, and what merits it (ourselves and other individuals). We would be enlightened enough not to be fooled into patriotism and seduced by a flag waving in our faces and a soaring national anthem. I'm not so naive to think that this will ever happen. The less nationalism/patriotism the better in my opinion, which is not to say that I discourage actions that others think altruistic. You will never eliminate it as long as humans form groups, so the best solution in my view is vigilance as I said in the article. Not just in the political sense, since this is a human phenomenon it can easily transcend politics... but in society too... justice, witch-hunts, violence and the rest of it. I see a lot wrong with the love of ones own group over another, the implication of its superiority is intellectual dishonesty if you accept relativism (which I take you don't?), hence you see a lesser proportion of patriots in philosophers and those that have travelled, than other people who lack those dual insights. I have no numbers to back that up, it's more a question of personal experience, but I cannot in my mind picture it being otherwise.
quote:
I'm not trying to be rude, but you asked for a critique. No offense intended:
|
None will be taken, thick skin and all that. I appreciate the grilling. It was a quick article... more of a mental exercise; I'm not so interested in defending my points than giving my mind a work out. I tend to use this approach often when debating so I've been known to change my mind about things in the face of better reasoning.
quote:
It just reads to me like a politcal tract justifying and rationalizing calling the BNP Nazis, rather than an indepth analysis. There was no discussion of other possible interpretations, just a this=this=this progression couch in unmentioned assumptions, with very few examples to provide illumination. I realize that its an article, not a term paper.
|
True. To be honest I would have liked to have delved more into the psychological elements. The aim was to use the BNP as an example, or a test. Typical far-right party, are they Nazi? My natural inclination is to use a dialectic approach to answer that but if I'm approaching from a more cerebral direction; an application of human nature to a political context, then a linear approach is required.
quote:
You're taking a leap forward and saying that having that combination, in whatever degree, automatically makes it reasonable to call that party a Nazi party.
|
Ah not quite. I'm not saying that populism = Nazism. I'm saying that Populism tends to National Socialism. Given populism it is a very slippery slope to Nazism, but not that Nazism is a necessary condition of populism.
quote:
Nazis have obvious historical connotations, as you are well aware, connotations that you wish to exploit. Its a good way to demonize a party you despise. But on the whole, I think that saying that since the BNP is Nationalist and has populist tendencies that they are Nazis is a stretch.
|
I don't think one needs my article or my argument to call the BNP's Nazi's, baring in mind their history of anti-semitism, their links with the National Front and Combat18. From personal experience my family were picked out as having a Jewish name in the phone book and harassed by members of the BNP, the worst incident was having the swastika graffitied on our door so you're facing an uphill battle to say the BNP and their membership are not Nazis. I know that the BNP could not possibly impliment all of their policies, because to do so they would have to try their own leadership for terrorism.
It is true that I am saying that the concept of Nazism bears the responsibility for the Holocaust, and that such a connotation extends to the likes of the BNP, but I go further than that at the end of my article where I say that National Socialism is a function of human nature under a given situation, so the Holocaust was something we has humans have to face up to as part of our own potential. In effect, I am thus merely describing the mechanism by which such things can occur.
quote:
You can be Nationalist and have populist tendencies without being a Nazi.
|
Degrees and measures. I'd like to see a populist, nationalist state that doesn't have socialist elements. I use that term in the economic sense, group "altruism" as opposed to competitive egoism, not communism vs. capitalism which is an unsatisfactory juxtaposition. Nazism is not a discrete "yes/no" description, rather it applies in degrees and measures. To what degree is the UK's New Labour government Nazi? Shall we say fairly. Ditto the US's Republicans? Safe to say more so (by my definition no?).
quote:
One example: Nazi nationalism, at its height, was quasi-mystical and cult-like, something that regular conservative nationalists (or typical patriotic people) would find alienating.
|
Really? Do Americans not force their children to swear an oath of allegiance to a piece of patterned cloth every morning? Do nations not have rousing national anthems to stir the spirit and make the soul burn with pride? Do nations not have sports teams that the media ascribes almost mythical qualities, as though the glorious history, proud achievments and noble virtues of that nation are resting upon the very shoulders of 11 men attempting to kick a ball into a net?
quote:
Have you ever watched Triumph of the Will? It basically turned a Party rally into a religious ceremony. To understand it better, you need to have a good grasp of the historical context in which the party developed.
|
The Leni Riefenstahl film? Studied it and the Nuremberg rallies repeatedly. All you are describing is the racial superiority which is not so much a central tenet of national socialism (after all, how?) but a determinable consequence. Will it manifest itself in white supremacy (aka BNP)? Will it manifest itself in Liebesraum and "Ein Volk"? Will it manifest itself in spreading democratic values to states that don't really want it? Racial supremacy? National dominance? Imperialism? Cultural hegemony? Religious mission? The list goes on and on and on, but it boils down to that same consequence of preference for ones own group over others, thus deeming yours superior. Once you consider your own superior, in whatever way, this aggressive behavior is almost inevitable is it not?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-02-2005 03:56
|