 |
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
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.
|
Well as I said above, if they look like national socialists, smell like national socialists, taste, sound and feel like them too, then differences in their titles and incidental differences in the manifestations of their national socialism will fail to convince me that they are *not* national socialists!
Note of course that assume national socialism = Nazi. Difficult to argue otherwise, not impossible. If you were to give me a graph of nationalism on one axis and socialism on another, then Nazism would be at the extremes of both and I think it necessary to that state. Occams razor applies methinks, to say national socialism = nazism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:25
|
|
Only 100'000'000? 
Assume for the minute that wars are fought because of nationalism or patriotism (we can debate this point later but assume it for the sake of argument). 95 million or thereabouts is a conservative estimate for those that died in the 20th century through war. I'm including both WW's, circa 10 million for WWI, 70 million for WWII including the Holocaust and Stalins numerous purges, and another 15 for the other relatively small conflicts. Add more if you want to consider the less known purges, such as Soeharto's murder of 1 million people with the support of the CIA, but you're going to end up with around 100mill. I clearly wasn't thinking when I said 8 figures earlier .
Now suppose that deaths through war run in proportion to growth in population (get numbers for that over the past 300'000 years, which henceforth we shall misleadingly call "human history") and advancement in technology which will be an exponent I should think. There will be ups and downs, for example the collapse of Rome screwed things up a bit but should be possible to work something out. Then there is the interplay between the two... social structures advance through time like Sparta, Rome and centralised democracy are better designed for killing large numbers than more fragmented tribal groups like the Etruscans. I might be wrong on that third point with larger numbers of small tribal wars equalising things, if so ignore it.
It should be possible to be able to plot a graph, very roughly, human deaths through war (and thus nationalism) over the past 300'000 years. Someone might want to integrate that* to get a final death count, but it's 02.30am and I need sleep.
*Kuci, I'm looking in your direction! 
Last edited by Whaleboy on 10-02-2005 at 07:42
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
Whaleboy, I edited my large post a bit before you posted this response. I wasn't quite finished with it when I posted it at first (I was at the library and had to leave, as my ride came to pick me up). Perhaps I've clarified things or added new issues that you'd like to address. Just giving you a heads up.
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
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. |
A limitation of "liberties" does not equate to totalitarianism. Was the 2nd Reich totalitarian? No. Maybe (even probably) there would be a change in definitions as to what the liberties one should have are, reflecting a change in the politcal priorities of the polity. It depends on the starting point, and what one's definition of "liberties" is.
quote:
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"). |
I disagree. Its human nature to want to be part of something greater, and to take pride in the successes of their group. Emotional? Yes. Irrational? Arguably. Idiotic and closed minded? Why? What is closed minded about being proud about your culture? Does this only apply to whites, or do you apply this standard to all ethnic/religious groups. (I can't help but notice that you described European Jewry as 'one of Europe's most prodigious cultures'" Is that a little bit of idiotic cultural pride showing? )
You brougth up Milgrim's study as proof of people's tendency to listen to authority. Are you familiar with the study in which they divided people randomly into two groups to show group competativeness? They manufactued rivalry where there was no logical reason for it to exist. (Its a relatively famous study, but I can't think of its name.  ) I think that its human nature to form and support groups, and to have pride in things that either don't involve you on an individual level or in which you play no part. Why else do people root for sports teams? Its not like most of us know those players. You treat Nationalism like an evil that would be best expunged from society; I see it as party of a group instinct that helps make us humans what we are. Rid ourselves of that intinct and we rid ourselves of society.
quote:
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. |
How can you claim that it "tends to lead to totalitarianism?" A better way to put that is it "can" lead
Sure, it lead to Nazi Germany. Yes, it lead to Fascist Italy (arguably totalitarian). Maybe North Korea, but I don't know enough about that country's regime to make a judgement. I wouldn't classify the other totalitarian states as nationalist (USSR, China). That's 3 states. That doesn't look like a tendency to me.
There are more authoritarian examples ( like Franco, Pilsudski), but there are plenty of examples of patriotic peoples who are not totalitarian today. What democracy exists in which there is no feeling of national pride amongsts at least some significant portion of its people?
quote:
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. |
Why do the two ideas (a party that has a strong guiding ideology and a party that uses Machiavellian opportunism) have to be mutually exclusive? Hitler was virulently anti-Communist, but made the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. The party still surpressed Communism at home, and the party still followed its doctrine and attacked the Soviets when it was advantageous to do so (or so the Nazis believed). Here is Hitler following ideology and bing opportunistic. Allying with Communists was a tool to use, even though it was contrary to basic party doctrine. However, using that tool did not change the basic nature of the party or its ideology.
The same can be said of Stalin courting Russian nationalism when he need to do so. For Stalin, it was the tool to use to rally the people to resist the Nazis, where they called upon old Russian nationalism to inspire the Russians to fight rather than revolt. (Hence the movie Alexander Nevsky) The general policy of the USSR, the ideology behind it, was that it was the state of International Communism. Any state could join with it and become a part of the state, because it was a state without a nation. The main enemies were class enemies like the Kulaks, not so much national enemies. True, Stalin did starve millions of Ukrainians to death. He used nationalism at times, but nationalism didn't provide the USSR its meaning; the international Worker's struggle did. However, Stalin could exploit ethnic nationalism from time to time to give himself a strategic advantage. Ideological parties do sometimes violate their ideology, if necessary, to serve their purposes.
The only way that I can see that the USSR could be considered nationalist is if you think that the worker's movement gave it a nationalism (that would be pretty ironic, but I suspect that it could fit under your idea of nationalism)
For the Nazis, the particularly Nazi brand of mystical German racism underscored everything. It wasn't a tool, it was the end to be reached. Without Aryan racism, the 3rd Reich was meaningless. I believe Hitler was absolutely motivated by his ideology, and had every intent of carrying things out. Why else send the settlers east during the war? This wasn't Machiavellian opportunism, this was pure ideology. Allying with Stalin when the situation called for it was Machiavellian. Either
quote:
If your distinction between Nazism and Stalinism is that one has nationalism in the title |
You know that that's not what I'm saying. You cannot seperate German racial nationalism from Nazism. It was the essence behind the movement. There was nothing in the Reich that didn't exhault the "Volk." There was nothing like that in the USSR, unless you want to count the international working class as a nation. The 3rd Reich loses meaning without German nationalism. The USSR had no racial component inherent to its meaning, and no real desire to exhault its culture as being any better or different than the culture of the working classes around the world.
quote:
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. |
As far as the id rationale goes, some people feel that they have a stake in the survival, growth, and success of their culture. Success of their country makes them happy, and thus is a personal reward. They're part of the nation, and they're helping it succeed. Maybe this doesn't make sense to you, but it makes sense to some people.
Furthermore, you're assuming that there will automatically be a Führerprinzip involved in any nationalist movement, and that there invariably will be a Führer to give word to the law. That's not necessarily true. Nationalists don't even have to completely reject democracy and representative government. I'll explain below what I mean as nationalism.
quote:
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. |
Do you think that the German people were really this unsophisticated? The Nazis weren't crystal clear with their economic policies, but "Brot und Arbeit" wasn't the only thing that they said. Again, the Childers book provides useful insight to the economic campaigning of the Nazi party.
quote:
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. |
Mein Kampf is pretty explict as to the quest for Lebensraum and ridding Germany of the evil Jew
quote:
In an ideal world, yes. In an ideal world, we would be educated enough to have pride in what is real |
... and the sum cultural experiences, history, and culture of a people isn't something that is real? It is something real and important by my definition
quote:
Ah not quite. I'm not saying that populism = Nazism. I'm saying that Populism tends to National Socialism. |
I think that it only does that under very specific, acute conditions.
quote:
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. |
That's the best argument for calling the BNP "Nazis," if that's part of their offical policy. Sounds like SA men. Thugs. Roughing up innoncent people, if part of the party's platform, is a good basis for seriously calling a nationalist a Fascist. However, a party isn't responsible for all its members if it does not promote violence against innocent people.
quote:
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. |
That's a very astute observation, and something that few people actually realize. Genocide is one of humanities oldest traits. I'm sure that you've read the Old Testament. Many people look at the Holocaust as the peculiar result of the German people, or perhaps of whites in particular.
quote:
Degrees and measures. I'd like to see a populist, nationalist state that doesn't have socialist elements. |
That's pretty much what would have happened had Ross Perot or Pat Buchanan won a US Presidential election. Granted, they're confirmed liberals who wouldn't support violence. They support economically populist positions (as I'll explain below), but nothing that I'd refer to as socialistic (except perhaps a national health care system). However, your parameters for socialism are also overbroad in my opinion. I agree with you that there is some inherent desire to care for your countrymen held in the hearts of nationalists, but socialism is a politcal term of art not to be thrown around too lightly. It would fit into your definitions, but pretty much any government with even a little national feeling and a few welfare state programs (like social security). That says to me that your criteria is too broad to be meaningful.
quote:
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.
Ditto the US's Republicans? Safe to say more so (by my definition no?). |
No. If so, your parameters for applying "national socialist" are far too broad. I would never say that the Republicans care about any sense of communal altruism, or even nationalism in many senses. W. and most Repubs are huge champions of open borders and globalism, two things that American Nationalists would oppose. I wouldn't call the Republican Party a nationalist party any more than I'd call the Dems a nationalist party.
quote:
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? |
Since you've watched and studied Triumph of the Will, you know that nothing we have comes close to rivaling the Nuremburg rally. To me that's like comparing a goldfish to a whaleshark and noting that they're both fish. The magnitude of Nuremburg and other Nazi celebrations dwarfs even American shows of patriotism.
quote:
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. |
No, it was the central tenant of the NSDAP's National Socialism. It wasn't a consequence, it was the purpose. All else was secondary to the glory and spread of the race. Its what the entire party was based on: the belief that, if allowed to act to their fullest potential the German People would be the world's dominant cultre, producing works of culture that would be unsurpassable, a military machine that would be unbeatable, and creating science that could allow the race to reach the stars and the create a utopian German Reich.
... anyway, my opion on the issue.
A Nationalist party that has populist appeal is not necessarily a Nazi party and cannot automatically be called such. Even if it does have both nationalist (as per my definition, limited to pride for your ethnic/racial/cultural heritage and a willingness to defend that heritage, not your super-broad yet misleading definition of nationalism as willing submission to powerful state/group leadership) and populist (economic populism [focusing on low unemployment through public works projects, manufacturing/industrial work, agricultural work, and internal commerce], high national self-sufficiency, and national health care/social security/ social safety net over high GNP and world trade) traits.
I would simply call this type of party a Nationalist party, or maybe a National Populist party. The term "National Socialist" has such powerful connotations that I'd only use it to label countries/movements that are substantially similar in both ideology and functioning of the 3rd Reich. Using it in any other way would be almost useless for serious purposes, as there is no way to escape the 3rd Reich connotations as a system of totalitarian mystical nationalism, fanatical militarism, and genocide.
I admit that, under the right conditions, the Nationalist party that I have described would be more apt to slide towards Fascism than would a Libertarian party, and the basic premise that you have listed in your article (willingness to follow a demagouge when desperate, assuming that your pride in your culture means that your culture is superior). However, I think that the conditions would have to be extrordinary for a regular Nationalist party to take the turn towards totalitarian Fascism; that is, I disagree that Populist Nationalism is a slippery slope towards totalitarianism and holocaust. It can't go there without reason, because its constituents wouldn't allow the switch in any but the most extraordinary times. Either that or the party will only be a tiny fringe group of violent fanatics, because in our modern times party platforms calling for violence are frowned upon (at least they are in Western countries). Its unfair to label a Nationalst party that is playing by the rules a "Fascist" party, unless it explictly or implictly wants to subvert and destroy representative government in their country, replacing it with a dictatorship.
Advocating mass violence is another valid reason to label a Nationalist party fascist (glorifying and idealizing violence as the way to purify the nation was another key feature of Fascist movements). If the BNP is to be called a Fascist party, I think that it would earn this title more due to the fact that it combines violent activities with its nationalism and populism than for its nationalist and populist elements alone.
Last edited by Wycoff on 10-02-2005 at 10:29
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
human deaths through war (and thus nationalism) over the past 300'000 years. |
Your understanding of what constitutes nationalism and my understanding of it are completely different. For you, nationalism is the cause for all of humanity's organized/semi-organized belligerence. Any accepted submission to a state is caused by nationalism. Pride in your own nation's accomplishments is wrong. No positive aspects to nationalism. What about wars waged by kings who hired mercenaries, wars designed to get that king personal wealth, kill a rival, win a wife,etc. Those wars have nothing to do with any conventional definition of nationalism.
Last edited by Wycoff on 10-02-2005 at 10:30
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:25
|
|
I think Whaleboy is suffering the common affliction of mixing up Nation, State and Country.
A Nation is thought to be a distinct group of human beings united by a series of things:
1. Ethnicity (shared common blood)
2. Culture (shared religion, customs, shared history)
A Nation can span many states (take the Kurdish nation split amongst Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran), or be a subset in a larger one (Scotts as members of the UNited Kingdom).
In 1848 people spoke of the German Nation, even if it was not until 1871 that a Germany existed. But it was assumed that Bavarians, Saxons, Hessians, Prussians, Austrians, Alsacians and so forth were one distinct group based on their shared culture (all Christians, aqll speaking German) and ethnicity. Ditto for the notion that Napolitans, Venetians, Milanese, Geonese, Romans, and the Piedmontese were all members of some Italian Nation also in 1848, even though there was not Italy until 1861.
Note that this is a political act, creating a Nation. After all, what are your chriteria? Bavarians and Austrians were Catholics, Prussians and Saxons Protestant- why should they count as one nation, not two? A Bavarian patriot is not necessarily a German Nationalist. A Scott can be a British patriot and still not a Scott Nationalist. IN fact, its strange that the BNP is trying to create a British nation, in effect trying to hide the long standing differences between the English, Scotts, Welsh, and Irish ( In N. Ireland), even thought they do have different languages (or had) and long histories of conflict. In essence., the BNP is trying to overcome the old divisions in the search to create a new "nation" that can then exclude other groups. This is very distinct from Patriotism, or Tribalism, and even in some ways tries to undermine the notion that what unites all Brits is being subjects of a single crown, not some underlying shared "national" indentity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
A limitation of "liberties" does not equate to totalitarianism.
|
Perhaps so but I fear your are succumbing to a tendency for a kind of discrete categorisation that’s unfortunately common in political discussion these days. For example, you might say propose that liberties are being surrendered to a degree that does not qualify it as totalitarianism, but have no contention with the device for that occurring; a device used in situations you *would* qualify as totalitarian. I, on the other hand, would say that totalitarianism is applying to a greater or lesser degree. I once proposed, about two years ago, a conceptual limit to rights whereby liberty achieves a maximum, juxtapose that against totalitarianism and where liberty = max, totalitarianism = 0, so any offset from that maximum gives a positive number to degree of total government. I have since come to the understanding that this “Mill Limit” is purely academic and realistically unworkable, but it allows us to measure totalitarianism relative to it. Again, more evidence for a continuous human phenomenon which you seem to accept later in your post. I think, from your logic, you might imply a negative totalitarianism, which I deny for a prescriptive condition inherent to human society.
quote:
I disagree. Its human nature to want to be part of something greater, and to take pride in the successes of their group. Emotional? Yes. Irrational? Arguably. Idiotic and closed minded? Why? What is closed minded about being proud about your culture? Does this only apply to whites, or do you apply this standard to all ethnic/religious groups. (I can't help but notice that you described European Jewry as 'one of Europe's most prodigious cultures'" Is that a little bit of idiotic cultural pride showing?
|
 With regards to “prodigious cultures”, you have me hook line and sinker there! 
However, with regards to your question “idiotic and closed minded”, it goes back to my original point of being proud of your culture. You have a choice of two recourses. Firstly, that your culture has your pride surely means that you consider it superior, so relative to yours others are worse, hence racial supremacy. Your second recourse is a little softer, whereby you’re saying that all cultures are equal but yours is more “equal” (in the descriptive as opposed to former prescriptive sense) than others, which in turn leads to cultural hegemony a la PNAC.
quote:
You brougth up Milgrim's study as proof of people's tendency to listen to authority. Are you familiar with the study in which they divided people randomly into two groups to show group competativeness? They manufactued rivalry where there was no logical reason for it to exist. (Its a relatively famous study, but I can't think of its name. ) I think that its human nature to form and support groups, and to have pride in things that either don't involve you on an individual level or in which you play no part. Why else do people root for sports teams? Its not like most of us know those players. You treat Nationalism like an evil that would be best expunged from society; I see it as party of a group instinct that helps make us humans what we are. Rid ourselves of that intinct and we rid ourselves of society.
|
The Robbers Cave experiment by Muzapher Sherif? (sp?) Yes I’m familiar with it, and I considered actually using it to support my argument? Why? Because my argument is not a prescription that Nazism is devilish, evil and wrong. My argument is that Nazism, and its component parts, nationalism, the inevitable consequence of populism in society -> national socialism, is something that is part of the human condition. I could quite happily plagiarise your post there for my own ends! . I am not proposing that such things should be eliminated, I’m saying that we need to keep an eye on it and not let it get out of control, because otherwise things like the Holocaust (which I AM saying is wrong) can occur.
quote:
How can you claim that it "tends to lead to totalitarianism?" A better way to put that is it "can" lead
|
One should say “lead” if there is no positive proportional relationship between populism and totalitarianism/nat. soc. In other words, if in some discrete circumstance... There goes that discrete thinking again. Again that is not my argument, mine is that it is continuous… totalitarianism is proportional to application of populism. This relationship can be confounded by other factors I’m sure, notably cultural constraints that will amplify or dampen the degree of proportion but the relationship stands nonetheless I think.
quote:
Why do the two ideas (a party that has a strong guiding ideology and a party that uses Machiavellian opportunism) have to be mutually exclusive?
|
Ah no that was the question I asked you with a mind to reductio ad absurdum. It is a consequence of my argument that they are *not* mutually exclusive.
quote:
For the Nazis, the particularly Nazi brand of mystical German racism underscored everything. It wasn't a tool, it was the end to be reached. Without Aryan racism, the 3rd Reich was meaningless. I believe Hitler was absolutely motivated by his ideology, and had every intent of carrying things out. Why else send the settlers east during the war? This wasn't Machiavellian opportunism, this was pure ideology.
|
As an emotivist I am compelled to disagree here. Also I could use an “attack” someone used of me earlier, that you are using logical positivism here. Emotively speaking, our “morality” (I take it further to actions and conscious intent) are motivated by our emotions. Do we accept that Nazism is a function of humanity? Assume yes for the minute. It has to be present in the human nature of the leaders, so we can use emotivism… alas I can think of no studies into the psychology of leaders (the obeyees as opposed to obeyers) that can be more specific, but this would seem an interesting area of study. If I am correct then, it is the nature of the leaders that propels his end of national socialism, so what you show to be essential to Nazism is instead merely a manifestation of something deeper. Again this would be an apt opportunity for someone to differentiate between national socialism and Nazism. They are more than welcome, it’s just semantics.
quote:
You cannot seperate German racial nationalism from Nazism.
|
To put my contention in more summary terms, you’re saying that German racial nationalism is necessary to Nazism (and presumably that Nazism is merely sufficient to this Aryan ideal?), whereas I am saying that Nazism is a necessary condition of that particular ideal, the ideal itself is sufficient to Nazism but not necessary). Penguins and birds.
quote:
As far as the id rationale goes, some people feel that they have a stake in the survival, growth, and success of their culture. Success of their country makes them happy, and thus is a personal reward. They're part of the nation, and they're helping it succeed. Maybe this doesn't make sense to you, but it makes sense to some people.
|
No it makes perfect sense to me; I’m not denying that nationalism is resorted to out of instinctive self-interest. I don’t believe that altruism exists so you’ll find no contention from me there. I wouldn’t term it as you have though, I would say that the human instinct in given situations is to band together whereby participating in the group will give a greater net gain to the individual, than being out in the cold. Of course the consequences may differ but that’s the nature of our intent, or perhaps the intent of our nature .
quote:
Furthermore, you're assuming that there will automatically be a Führerprinzip involved in any nationalist movement, and that there invariably will be a Führer to give word to the law. That's not necessarily true. Nationalists don't even have to completely reject democracy and representative government. I'll explain below what I mean as nationalism.
|
No I’m not assuming that, but I can understand how you would reach such a determination so I apologise for being opaque. Nazism and democracy, councils, theocracy, and any means of government I can think of (even anarchy is quite plausible *looks at Somalia*) are not mutually exclusive; it does not require a fuehrer or dictatorship. Again we go back to the obedience study.
quote:
Mein Kampf is pretty explict as to the quest for Lebensraum and ridding Germany of the evil Jew
|
Really? The implication I got from reading it was that he intended to kick the Jews out, not murder them. Not that forced migration is particularly palatable either.
quote:
and the sum cultural experiences, history, and culture of a people isn't something that is real? It is something real and important by my definition
|
I’d like to hear that definition. Culture is intangible and fluctuant; an aesthetic almost. In brutal economic terms, applying materialistic logic to something of which there is infinite supply (for all intents and purposes) is erroneous. I’m assuming that to have pride in something one must value it, and value is a function of supply and demand, which in turn assumes that egoism precludes altruism. The group-think pride (patriotism/nationalism) occurs when this culture is assumed to be an economic commodity with value, and more value relative to others. This links in nicely to the “span of sympathy” and cultural hegemony argument.
quote:
However, a party isn't responsible for all its members if it does not promote violence against innocent people.
|
You’re familiar with Hitler’s clashes with Rohm to control the SA so as not to alienate Hindenburg? Non-violence is often a political ploy, and I am aware of rhetoric on the modern far right of saying “quiet and civilised” until their time comes, and descriptions of what will happen sound like the book of revelations! Nonetheless, I do concur that the party as a whole cannot be responsible for the actions of a half dozen of its members. But if there is reasonable grounds to claim that those members are indicative of the membership, and it is, in my opinion, more reasonable to judge a party by its actions and membership as opposed to statements of intent, then the representation of the party as a whole would be affected accordingly.
quote:
That's a very astute observation, and something that few people actually realize. Genocide is one of humanities oldest traits. I'm sure that you've read the Old Testament. Many people look at the Holocaust as the peculiar result of the German people, or perhaps of whites in particular.
|
Indeed. To show otherwise is one of the purposes of my article, by describing Nazism in terms of human nature.
quote:
No. If so, your parameters for applying "national socialist" are far too broad. I would never say that the Republicans care about any sense of communal altruism, or even nationalism in many senses. W. and most Repubs are huge champions of open borders and globalism, two things that American Nationalists would oppose. I wouldn't call the Republican Party a nationalist party any more than I'd call the Dems a nationalist party.
|
Perhaps then I should have rephrased and said the “neocons”. From what I have seen the two post-9/11 wars have been sold (in both the US and UK) by national socialism, admittedly veiled into cultural/political hegemony as opposed to racial supremacy for various reasons.
quote:
Since you've watched and studied Triumph of the Will, you know that nothing we have comes close to rivaling the Nuremburg rally. To me that's like comparing a goldfish to a whaleshark and noting that they're both fish. The magnitude of Nuremburg and other Nazi celebrations dwarfs even American shows of patriotism.
|
The argument is that Nuremberg and the like are symptomatic, not the cause of the definition of Nazism.
quote:
It wasn't a consequence, it was the purpose. All else was secondary to the glory and spread of the race.
|
Well I’ve dealt with that above but you need to explain why, as opposed to my reasoning, the Aryan ideal precludes Nazism. You need to show what there is in that notion that leads to a deductive relationship to Nazism in a specific guise as opposed to a general one, and show that Nazism is, accordingly something more than National Socialism, with that addition of the same or greater relevance.
quote:
(economic populism [focusing on low unemployment through public works projects, manufacturing/industrial work, agricultural work, and internal commerce], high national self-sufficiency, and national health care/social security/ social safety net over high GNP and world trade) traits.
|
There’s your flaw. Populism by definition is simply an interplay between people and leader (remember my dice analogy?). What you have described there is socialism. So you have nationalism, and socialism. National socialism. Simply because that definition has unwanted connotations does not mean that by consequence the definition cannot hold; that’s wishful thinking.
quote:
Using it in any other way would be almost useless for serious purposes, as there is no way to escape the 3rd Reich connotations as a system of totalitarian mystical nationalism, fanatical militarism, and genocide.
|
So what would you have me call a system that is both nationalist and socialist? In my opinion you are limiting your definition by being too discrete, and would have Nazism as Germany 1933 – 45 for the aforementioned reasons, notably the Aryan ideal. Would you say that in order to be both nationalist and socialist you would have to believe in the Aryan ideal and hold quasi-religious ceremonies with swastikas formed by little girls holding candles? To me that seems ludicrous, since there is nothing in Nationalism or Socialism that necessarily leads to that particular phenomenon. And would you not agree that nationalism and socialism can apply in degrees and measures, not in a detached, isolated qualification? If not, how can you define in a positivist sense the differences between, say, communism and socialism, and would you consider political fashions to work in on a one-dimensional left/right axis? How, then, do you reconcile that with differing political concerns throughout history? If you cannot, you must thus concede that these concepts apply continuously.
quote:
Your understanding of what constitutes nationalism and my understanding of it are completely different. For you, nationalism is the cause for all of humanity's organized/semi-organized belligerence. Any accepted submission to a state is caused by nationalism. Pride in your own nation's accomplishments is wrong. No positive aspects to nationalism. What about wars waged by kings who hired mercenaries, wars designed to get that king personal wealth, kill a rival, win a wife,etc. Those wars have nothing to do with any conventional definition of nationalism.
|
Woaahh easy there! In the post you quoted from I made it clear that we were to assume for the sake of argument that war is a sufficient condition to nationalism/patriotism. That’s a different debate entirely.
However you are grossly misrepresenting my position here.
quote:
Any accepted submission to a state is caused by nationalism
|
I never said that. Nationalism implies submission to a state, but submission to a state need not require nationalism. If the state offers me £10M to wax Tony Blair’s backside, I’d submit to the state faster than a racist gimp at a BDSM/BNP convention!
quote:
Pride in your own nation's accomplishments is wrong. No positive aspects to nationalism.
|
Strawman also. Pride in ones nation’s accomplishments is inevitable. It is logically false, but nowhere did I imply it was morally wrong. Remember I am a moral relativist. You bring in morality by saying “positive aspects to nationalism”, which I assume you mean in a categorical sense. I never said there were none, even though it is a fallacy imo. As a result of German nationalism, men walked on the moon, I can microwave a burrito in seconds and the History channel provides me with hours of entertainment through hilariously voiced commentaries.
On a different note, would you take pride in your continents achievements? What about the achievements of those of the same hair colour as you? Those of the same political opinion, or perhaps religion? Those of a similar height, the same gender? What if any of these contradict? What if (any of the above) were to contradict with pride in ones family? Which would one default to?
quote:
I must over agree with Wycoff on the meaning of nationalism- xenophobia and tribalism are not the same as nationalism.
|
Gepap: In the political sense I would concur with you but this is an argument constructed more from the angle of human nature. Xenophobia, tribalism, patriotism, nationalism et al, are they not all symptomatic of the same response within us?
quote:
A Nation is thought to be a distinct group of human beings united by a series of things:
1. Ethnicity (shared common blood)
2. Culture (shared religion, customs, shared history)
|
You mention the Kurds. What if, in say 200 years, the Kurds in (what is now) Iraq and the Kurds in (what is now) Turkey no longer see themselves as part of the same nation, and yet they are undoubtedly of their same lineage and have the same or very similar culture? By your logic, they would still be in the same nation. To me, “nation” is a very subjective term, a political entity and a description under nationalism of those within it… i.e., self-titling.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Gepap: In the political sense I would concur with you but this is an argument constructed more from the angle of human nature. Xenophobia, tribalism, patriotism, nationalism et al, are they not all symptomatic of the same response within us? |
NO, not really. Patriotism and Nationalism are both ideas in whcih you give your alliegence to something much greater than you and essentially abstract. "The Nation" emcompasses a great deal of people you will never know, or meet, and whose connection to you might be simply living in the same area and speaking the same toungue-thinking then that this single connection should all of a sudden mean the entire world and you should be willing to die for them and so forth is NOT natural at all. Tribalism is different, as it is based on a connection to those blood and flesh relatives around you daily-you ties and connections to them is obvious and daily. Xenophobia is an internal defense mechanism against being too trusting of the other. Those two things are natural.
quote:
You mention the Kurds. What if, in say 200 years, the Kurds in (what is now) Iraq and the Kurds in (what is now) Turkey no longer see themselves as part of the same nation, and yet they are undoubtedly of their same lineage and have the same or very similar culture? By your logic, they would still be in the same nation. To me, “nation” is a very subjective term, a political entity and a description under nationalism of those within it… i.e., self-titling. |
You miss the point. Nation is subjective-the Kurds do think of themselves as a Nation now- I am sure 300 years ago they did not particularly think of there being a "kurdish nation" in that sense. You can't ever take away the fact some people share a common langauge and common rites and live on approximate lands- the question of whether this common identity all of a sudden is supposed to be more important that say economic class, a trait they also share with other people, or alliegence to the same political body. That is what makes Nationalism special and distinct-the modern notion that comon ethnicity and culture is THE bond that determines our being and thus the most important civic relation and that which confers legitimacy on the state.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:25
|
|
For example, as someone living in the UK, what is the basis for your relation to all the people living around you? What is the most important common bond?
Is it speaking the same language?
Having the same interests?
Having a similar vocation?
Practicing the same religious rites?
Being subjects of the same Monarch?
Having a shared common history?
Every human being in the modern world has a dozen indentities: you are a man, a heterosexual (or bi-sexual, I forget), a student, a writer, a Jew (IIRC as well), a Member of the Middle class, A subject of the British Crown, A European, A Westerner, a Polytubbie, and many other things. Which is the most important to your notion of your indentity, or the order of their importance says much about your political identity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
NO, not really. Patriotism and Nationalism are both ideas in whcih you give your alliegence to something much greater than you and essentially abstract. "The Nation" emcompasses a great deal of people you will never know, or meet, and whose connection to you might be simply living in the same area and speaking the same toungue-thinking then that this single connection should all of a sudden mean the entire world and you should be willing to die for them and so forth is NOT natural at all. Tribalism is different, as it is based on a connection to those blood and flesh relatives around you daily-you ties and connections to them is obvious and daily. Xenophobia is an internal defense mechanism against being too trusting of the other. Those two things are natural.
|
An interesting response, good points well made. I accept then difference between tribalism and nationalism but therein is a workable distinction for me, since the two would be similar in the sense of, shall we say, football riots, whereby one doesn’t know everyone else, one doesn’t love everyone else, but as a shortcut to thinking and mental effort people ascribe some abstract virtue or quality of themselves to this group, effectively rendering it a nation and theirs artificial nationalism. Xenophobia
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=xenophobia
“A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples. “
Would it be fair to say that this grows out of lack of understanding for other cultures, and or fear of attack or their perceived malevolence?
quote:
You miss the point. Nation is subjective-the Kurds do think of themselves as a Nation now- I am sure 300 years ago they did not particularly think of there being a "kurdish nation" in that sense. You can't ever take away the fact some people share a common langauge and common rites and live on approximate lands- the question of whether this common identity all of a sudden is supposed to be more important that say economic class, a trait they also share with other people, or alliegence to the same political body. That is what makes Nationalism special and distinct-the modern notion that comon ethnicity and culture is THE bond that determines our being and thus the most important civic relation and that which confers legitimacy on the state.
|
But by that logic nations would run on purely cultural and lingual lines. You might well describe cultures of civilisations better with that descriptions, as opposed to nations. For example, you may well describe “The West” with that, but would be unable to differentiate between, say, the USA and Canada, or the US and the UK, except for cosmetic differences like gun culture or national anthem.
quote:
For example, as someone living in the UK, what is the basis for your relation to all the people living around you? What is the most important common bond?
|
For me? The obvious choice is language, but then, to my mind that’s the only thing that separates me from someone who lives in France, Spain, Germany, Somalia and the rest of it. This can all be learned and I endeavour to do so. I see no difference, or no lesser bond, between me and someone who lives five streets away, and someone in the USA who lives five time zones away. As for shared history, or shared economy, the inevitable conclusion of that is human history etc… history tends to be a unifying view.
quote:
Which is the most important to your notion of your indentity, or the order of their importance says much about your political identity.
|
Ah I understand better. The answer is “none of the above”. I am *my name*, the rest I view as little more than bureaucracy. I try not to succumb to the human tendency to nationhood or groups, I can’t expect that others can or will do the same though .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
An interesting response, good points well made. I accept then difference between tribalism and nationalism but therein is a workable distinction for me, since the two would be similar in the sense of, shall we say, football riots, whereby one doesn’t know everyone else, one doesn’t love everyone else, but as a shortcut to thinking and mental effort people ascribe some abstract virtue or quality of themselves to this group, effectively rendering it a nation and theirs artificial nationalism. |
Tribalism makes Nationalism easier and gives it part of its potency, but that does not mean Nationalism is a distinct, modern idelogy. As for soccer riots, how much of that is human herd behavior?
quote:
Would it be fair to say that this grows out of lack of understanding for other cultures, and or fear of attack or their perceived malevolence? |
Yes, that is correct.
quote:
But by that logic nations would run on purely cultural and lingual lines. You might well describe cultures of civilisations better with that descriptions, as opposed to nations. For example, you may well describe “The West” with that, but would be unable to differentiate between, say, the USA and Canada, or the US and the UK, except for cosmetic differences like gun culture or national anthem. |
The fact is language was always one of the main issues of nation-think of France or Spain, two strong monarchied made up of a lot of different older duchies and kingdoms all swallowed up-the monarchs made sure to force their tounge on all their subjects (castillian, Parisian French) to create a common identity. The two nations I spoek about before, Italians and Germans, are essentially linguistic groups.
Note how much people make fun of Canada as 'not a real country anyways'- part of that IS because of Canada sharing so much with the US that under the current definition of nation, why should they be different? You certainly see the same with Austria and Germany a lot of the time. It is at this point that a different history is used to differentiate, as well as blood- after all, most Americans are NOT decendents of Britons. The US thought is difficult for nationalism, because there are so many different ehtnic groups all joined by a common civic history-this makes it hard to speak of some organic "American" NATION- most American nationalists end up beign racists too.
quote:
For me? The obvious choice is language, but then, to my mind that’s the only thing that separates me from someone who lives in France, Spain, Germany, Somalia and the rest of it. This can all be learned and I endeavour to do so. I see no difference, or no lesser bond, between me and someone who lives five streets away, and someone in the USA who lives five time zones away. As for shared history, or shared economy, the inevitable conclusion of that is human history etc… history tends to be a unifying view. |
Well, all this means simply that you don't buy the Nationalist ideology. Good for you, cause I don't either
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Not particularly true. The first fascist regime was Italy, which was technically victorious in WW1, and it occured well before the Depression. Fascism is an answer to the problems of modernity and discontent at the old social order, and no particular set of circumstances is necessary- Look at how the fascists won in Spain, whcih had not been in any foreign wars since 1898. There fascism grew as a counterforce to the left leaning Republican government.
I agree with your notion that discontent is necessary, but it not need be as radical as you assume. |
I meant to edit that part regarding Italy, but I forgot to do so. It should be eaither a loss in a recent war or an embarassment in that war. Italy was technically a victory, but it didn't have that great of a showing in the war, and after the war its demands were basically ignored and the other allies refused to give Italy what they had promised to give them to entice Italy's entry. That national embarassment worked largely in the same way that a loss in the war would have.
Also, Franco wasn't fascist. There was a Fascist party in Spain, but it was the Spanish Phalange, headed by Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera. Franco's party was a traditionally nationalist/ religious authoritarian party (much like the German DNVP), and regarded the Phalange as being too radical. Primo de Rivera was assasinated in the mid 1930s.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Perhaps so but I fear your are succumbing to a tendency for a kind of discrete categorisation that’s unfortunately common in political discussion these days. For example, you might say propose that liberties are being surrendered to a degree that does not qualify it as totalitarianism, but have no contention with the device for that occurring; a device used in situations you *would* qualify as totalitarian. I, on the other hand, would say that totalitarianism is applying to a greater or lesser degree. I once proposed, about two years ago, a conceptual limit to rights whereby liberty achieves a maximum, juxtapose that against totalitarianism and where liberty = max, totalitarianism = 0, so any offset from that maximum gives a positive number to degree of total government. |
So any resrictiction of liberties makes a government more totalitarian by default... I understand what you're saying. I think that having total liberty as maximum value is misleading, though, as I don't think that the best possible condition to live would be one in which people have maximum liberty. I know that your numbers don't have to be interpreted that way, but it seems implicit. I think that, at somepoint, increasing the amount of liberty in a society decreases the value of that society. However, I understand that your continuim doesn't have to indicate qualitative value of a government, it simply acts as a quantitaive measure of its level of freedom.
quote:
However, with regards to your question “idiotic and closed minded”, it goes back to my original point of being proud of your culture. You have a choice of two recourses. Firstly, that your culture has your pride surely means that you consider it superior, so relative to yours others are worse, hence racial supremacy. Your second recourse is a little softer, whereby you’re saying that all cultures are equal but yours is more “equal” (in the descriptive as opposed to former prescriptive sense) than others, which in turn leads to cultural hegemony |
In a way I agree with what you're saying, but in otherways I don't. It once again appears as a slippery slope. I am proud of the achievements of Western society, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the historical achievements of the Chinese or the Arabs. I don't feel threatened that they have/had cultures that dwarfed my own. However, if someone tried to denigrate or otherwise threaten my own culture, I would feel threatened and act defensively. I don't think that that qualifies as either supremacy or cultural hegemony. I don't care if the Arabs live like me, and I can't "give" them my culture or its history. What you're saying reminds me of something that I've always wondered about religion. If you believe in a religion, how can you possibly respect another religion? After all, you're right and they're wrong.
I don't consider PNAC a nationalist organization. Neo-cons seems more messianic than nationalistic, as they base their ideology on the underlying assumption that the only way to save the world is to ensure democracy everywhere at all times, using force if need be. That looks more like the Communist ideal of world reveolution rather than a practical nationalist goal of doing what's best for citizens of the US. Spreading democracy through force abroad while doing nothing to ensure employment or secure borders at home doesn't seem nationalistic to me.
quote:
The Robbers Cave experiment by Muzapher Sherif? (sp?) Yes I’m familiar with it, and I considered actually using it to support my argument? Why? Because my argument is not a prescription that Nazism is devilish, evil and wrong. My argument is that Nazism, and its component parts, nationalism, the inevitable consequence of populism in society -> national socialism, is something that is part of the human condition. |
I don't think that populism = socialism. They are distinct political concepts. I''m not the best person on this board to define socialism. Che or Agathon would be better suited at it, and I'm sure they'd differentiate it better for you. To me, populism is about giving the little guy a voice, making sure that he has the opportunity to gain employment and make a living.
Socialism connotes a more rigid, government guided economic structure ensuring largely equitable distribution of wealth. Populism and Socialism are similar in the sense that both take the needs of many into consideration. That's a similarity as far as comparing them to laissez-faire capitalism, which would not feel the need to give people the opportunity not to starve to death. However, I don't think that that similarity is enough to say that populism is socialism, or even that populism inevitably leads to socialism. Calling populism socialism in the context of this article seems like dishonest labeling.
quote:
I’m saying that we need to keep an eye on it and not let it get out of control, because otherwise things like the Holocaust (which I AM saying is wrong) can occur. |
No argument about the Holocaust being a crime. I just think that it takes extraordinary circumstances to create the political situations in which genocide can be achieved. Simply populism and nationalism can't bring that about on their own... there needs to be more external and internal stimuli. To me, those stimuli are just as important to bringing totalitaranism than are the underlying beliefs.
To me, the article fails by implying that simple vigilence is enough to prevent totalitarianism. The converse to that is that, if you aren't vigilent, fascism could develop out of groups like the BNP. To me, and I believe that history supports me in this, there needs to be severe conditions before fascism can develop. If the conditions are there (massive unemployment, financial catastrophe) vigilence won't help anything; people will call for radical changes. However if those conditions don't exist, there will not be the political will to undertake radical changes and, again, vigilance doesn't matter.
You can teach people about tolerance all you'd like (and I think you should). If the country is in good/fair shape, I think that the majority will be content to treat minorities decently. However, if the country enters into a sustained period of upheaval and disaster, then it won't matter that people were tought to be tolerant, they're going to seek radical changes and invariably (as you well know, because you sketched the outlines in your article) there will be a large group that blames outsiders and minorites for the problems. To me, the way to prevent totalitarianism is to ensure that condtions in the country don't get to where large numbers of people are desperate. Telling people to be tolerant doesn't work when there's 30% unemployment, there's hyperinflation, and people are starving.
quote:
totalitarianism is proportional to application of populism. |
So 100% populism = pure totalitarianism? I don't agree. I can envision a populist country that wasn't totalitarian. You're positing that the populists would necessarily be a party of violent rabble. I don't know if it has to be that way. The American Populists under William Jennings Bryan didn't seem particularly violent, they just wanted their concerns met and given a measure of assurance in their lives. I don't see them erecting totalitarian government, even if they were given the full reign to do so.
quote:
As an emotivist I am compelled to disagree here. Also I could use an “attack” someone used of me earlier, that you are using logical positivism here. Emotively speaking, our “morality” (I take it further to actions and conscious intent) are motivated by our emotions. Do we accept that Nazism is a function of humanity? Assume yes for the minute. It has to be present in the human nature of the leaders, so we can use emotivism… alas I can think of no studies into the psychology of leaders (the obeyees as opposed to obeyers) that can be more specific, but this would seem an interesting area of study. If I am correct then, it is the nature of the leaders that propels his end of national socialism, so what you show to be essential to Nazism is instead merely a manifestation of something deeper. |
Hitler didn't create the national appeal in a vacuum; he was a product of his environment in that regard. You recognize this. I don't think that he forced the majority to obey him, they supported him in the end because they believed in him. I think he truly believed in his nationalism. It was the conditions in the country that allowed his totalitarian appeals to resonate. Creating a glorious nation with prosperous people was the goal. It was nationalist and socialist. I agree with that. I don't know what you're trying to get at here beyond that.
That people naturally go towards national and socialist answers to questions? I agree, some people do. I'd argue (as I have ad naseum) that the worse the conditions in a country the more people will seek those anwers. However, people will also go to international communism in those same dire conditions (see Weimar Germany). I see a distinction between those two things; do you?
quote:
Again this would be an apt opportunity for someone to differentiate between national socialism and Nazism. |
My problem is that you are too willing to attach the terms "nationalism" and "socialism" when the definition doesn't quite fit. As I've established, I don't agree with you that populism = socialism. They are distinct. There is no difference between National Socialism and Nazism. My problem is that your definitions of the two key words are too broad and superficial, and include things that would be improper to call National Socialist.
quote:
To put my contention in more summary terms, you’re saying that German racial nationalism is necessary to Nazism |
Its necessary if you're talking German National Socialism. If you're talking about National Socialism in the context of that other country, that movement needs to exhibit a hyper nationalism. Much of our misunderstanding is in the difference between the application of our term National Socialism; your definition is broader than mine.
quote:
(and presumably that Nazism is merely sufficient to this Aryan ideal?), |
Not sure what you mean here
quote:
I would say that the human instinct in given situations is to band together whereby participating in the group will give a greater net gain to the individual, than being out in the cold. |
I don't know if I'd go along with that cost/benefit type analysis of our group nature. I think that by interacting in society we are naturally acting as part of a group. You can't be truly independent and solitary unless you live alone in the wilderness, never contacting the rest of society. What you are describing reads to me more like the situation in the Hobbesian state of nature.
quote:
Nazism and democracy, councils, theocracy, and any means of government I can think of (even anarchy is quite plausible *looks at Somalia*) are not mutually exclusive |
Again, I disagree because our terms are different. I think that National Socialism requires dictatorship. Populism does not. Interacting in a populist group IMO wouldn't be based on obedience, it would be more on an interest to gain financial security.
quote:
I’d like to hear that definition. Culture is intangible and fluctuant; an aesthetic almost. In brutal economic terms, applying materialistic logic to something of which there is infinite supply (for all intents and purposes) is erroneous. I’m assuming that to have pride in something one must value it, and value is a function of supply and demand, which in turn assumes that egoism precludes altruism. The group-think pride (patriotism/nationalism) occurs when this culture is assumed to be an economic commodity with value, and more value relative to others. |
I don't think that it is anything like an economic commodity. It doesn't make sense; its value has nothing to do with supply and demand. Emotional value and actual value are different and mutually independent. What I am saying is that emotional value is not related to supply and demand at all, and that type of analysis is a poor way to evalute pride.
quote:
But if there is reasonable grounds to claim that those members are indicative of the membership, and it is, in my opinion, more reasonable to judge a party by its actions and membership as opposed to statements of intent, then the representation of the party as a whole would be affected accordingly. |
I agree
quote:
Perhaps then I should have rephrased and said the “neocons”. From what I have seen the two post-9/11 wars have been sold (in both the US and UK) by national socialism, admittedly veiled into cultural/political hegemony as opposed to racial supremacy for various reasons. |
Beyond the basic stated disagreement on the definition, I fail to see how this even passes as national socialism under your terms. Most Americans supported Iraq because they believed that Sadaam was behind 9/11. They didn't support it to spread democracy, that was an ex post facto justification of the administration, one that angered a good many patriotic Americans who I would consider Nationalists and Populists. Complaints of "Why spend our tax money building hospitals in Iraq when the government can't fund hospitals in America?" and "Why should we have to pay to make Iraq democratic? Who cares if they are democratic or not?" are quite prevalent. Most people aren't behind the neocon crusade. The neocons couldn't care less about populism; they are the "ivory tower intellectuals" you mentioned. Neocons aren't national socialists by your definition, and they certainly aren't National Socialists by my definition.
quote:
Well I’ve dealt with that above but you need to explain why, as opposed to my reasoning, the Aryan ideal precludes Nazism. |
Again, I'm not sure what you're asking here.
quote:
You need to show what there is in that notion that leads to a deductive relationship to Nazism in a specific guise as opposed to a general one, and show that Nazism is, accordingly something more than National Socialism |
I've already dealt with this above. There could be what I consider National Socialism in other countrues, it would just have to demostrate substantially similar traits as German National Socialism. Just being Nationalist with some populist tendencies is not enough in my book to call something National Socialist.
quote:
There’s your flaw. Populism by definition is simply an interplay between people and leader (remember my dice analogy?). |
No, its not. You seem to see populism as any movement with a demagougic leader riling up an angry mob. Populism is a distinct branch of political philosophy, a brach that diifers from Socialism. Populism doesn't call for a state controlled economy, it just wants a social safety net and employment.
quote:
What you have described there is socialism. |
Again, I disagree, as I've explained above
quote:
So you have nationalism, and socialism. National socialism. |
I think its manipulating the terms to get to a conclusion. National Socialism is a historically distinct government form, and there are certain criteria that must be met to qualify as such.
quote:
In my opinion you are limiting your definition by being too discrete, and would have Nazism as Germany 1933 – 45 |
No, it would apply to any government or group that is substantially similar to the German Nazis in goals and methods, with some other racial/cultureal supremacy idea replacing the Aryan ideal. It would need to meet the criteria I listed in the previous post.
quote:
And would you not agree that nationalism and socialism can apply in degrees and measures, not in a detached, isolated qualification? |
Yes, there are degrees of nationalism and of socialism. But I would also say that National Socialism is a label that is applied to governments with particular, extreme degrees of both those elements. The label National Socialist has meaning beyond simply breaking it down to component parts. Governments can have a high degree of nationalism and some socialist elements, but I wouldn't call them National Socialist, because that label has a seperate meaning, a meaning that is deeper than "semantics"
quote:
Woaahh easy there! In the post you quoted from I made it clear that we were to assume for the sake of argument that war is a sufficient condition to nationalism/patriotism. That’s a different debate entirely. |
Sorry, I overlooked that when I read that post. Ignore the response to that post.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
Whaleboy,
Another group to consider is the KKK. How do they fit into your view? They are white supremecists and rely on popular appeal, yet they are also virulently anti-government libertarians. How do those two positions square with one another? Would you consider them Nazis?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
I don't think that that qualifies as either supremacy or cultural hegemony. I don't care if the Arabs live like me, and I can't "give" them my culture or its history. What you're saying reminds me of something that I've always wondered about religion. If you believe in a religion, how can you possibly respect another religion? After all, you're right and they're wrong.
|
Again I think you’re illustrating the degrees and measures issue that’s somewhat central to my argument, which I think you’re identifying in a negative sense as a slippery slope, which is only a fallacy when discrete absurdities are at work, but mine is not a discrete argument. As you say later in your post, when push comes to shove the situation is bound to deteriorate, and the population as a whole is rife for the propagation of supremacist views.
quote:
However, I don't think that that similarity is enough to say that populism is socialism, or even that populism inevitably leads to socialism. Calling populism socialism in the context of this article seems like dishonest labeling.
|
I used to be a socialist, and an active one at that so we’re good. Understanding human nature however put an end that little foray into Marxism . I am not equating populism with socialism, I am saying that populism tends to nationalism and socialism.
Pop. -> Nationalism
Pop. -> Socialism
*NOT* Pop = nationalism or socialism.
Remember that socialism, as well as nationalism, is a concept… a relationship. As a result, we can use them in a logical, precise manner; they are not self-contained holisms except in individual manifestations, but you can’t really do anything useful with that.
quote:
To me, the article fails by implying that simple vigilence is enough to prevent totalitarianism.
|
True. At the moment it’s an unexamined assumption, I need to do more to demonstrate it. The BNP could never achieve power unless the situation were to come to pass when intellectual vigilance would be useless anyway. But they are still able to cause localised damage, achieve local power and the like, about which something can be done imo.
quote:
So 100% populism = pure totalitarianism? I don't agree. I can envision a populist country that wasn't totalitarian. You're positing that the populists would necessarily be a party of violent rabble.
|
Not at all, there is no necessary reason why a populist party would have to be violent. Yet again this is continuous. Any democratic party must be populist otherwise it would be unpopular, however for a high degree of national socialism, I wouldn’t put “violent rabble” past them. Doesn’t mean they are “necessarily” so.
quote:
My problem is that you are too willing to attach the terms "nationalism" and "socialism" when the definition doesn't quite fit. As I've established, I don't agree with you that populism = socialism. They are distinct. There is no difference between National Socialism and Nazism. My problem is that your definitions of the two key words are too broad and superficial, and include things that would be improper to call National Socialist.
|
You’re using this rigid, discrete holistic approach that really will limit you. Remember this isn’t so much a question of political history as political psychology. You strawman me by saying my argument is that populism = socialism or nationalism, my argument is that it tends to it. Quite simply, my argument says that your level of “Nazism” is your level of nationalism and socialism. We cannot proceed in this debate until you understand that I am using degrees and measures. You accuse my definitions of being broad and superficial but really that’s just semantics. Nationalism we cannot argue with, socialism is problematic, for example, was Stalin a communist or a Stalinist, and is communism Stalinism? Yes, Yes, No. I would generally take socialism to be an economic philosophy (if not a system) with the utilitarian consequence (and vice versa). You see how it bleeds into communism no?
Now you need to show to make your argument stand how your discrete method is correct over mine, I believe I have offered a defence of the continuous?
quote:
Not sure what you mean here
|
Is the Aryan ideal (Triumph of the Will) necessary to being a Nazi (you’re argument, if so how what mechanism causes that to occur automatically with National Socialism, such that to be a national socialist one has to be a Nazi as you describe it), or is it merely sufficient as in my argument. Aryan ideal, political system in Germany between 33 and 45 is sufficient to being a Nazi, but is not necessary (just as being a penguin is sufficient to being a bird, but birds are not necessarily penguins). Continuous logic again.
quote:
I don't know if I'd go along with that cost/benefit type analysis of our group nature. I think that by interacting in society we are naturally acting as part of a group. You can't be truly independent and solitary unless you live alone in the wilderness, never contacting the rest of society. What you are describing reads to me more like the situation in the Hobbesian state of nature.
|
Comes back down to economics and degrees and measures. It is impossible to be utterly socialistic and utterly individual, the degrees to which we are both reflect our environment and our psychology therein.
quote:
Again, I disagree because our terms are different. I think that National Socialism requires dictatorship.
|
Why? You need to link your concept of Nazism with nationalism or socialism, otherwise we cannot procede. You might as well call it Hitlerism to avoid the confusion, but there are those two concepts at work and you need to relate them to what you are describing, otherwise all you can achieve here are little more than word games.
quote:
I don't think that it is anything like an economic commodity. It doesn't make sense; its value has nothing to do with supply and demand. Emotional value and actual value are different and mutually independent. What I am saying is that emotional value is not related to supply and demand at all, and that type of analysis is a poor way to evalute pride.
|
Materialist and symbolic logic (precursors to any notion of human want, as opposed to need) do not operate on solely tangible grounds, hence value -> pride. Do you contest that value is a function of supply and demand, and if so, what is your alternative? I suspect you will offer the Marxist (worker labour) idea, but then would you say that culture and history require such labours in order to give it that value and if not why not?
quote:
I've already dealt with this above. There could be what I consider National Socialism in other countrues, it would just have to demostrate substantially similar traits as German National Socialism. Just being Nationalist with some populist tendencies is not enough in my book to call something National Socialist.
|
Well you haven’t dealt with it, you have just said that it is so and failed to justify why it is so.
quote:
No, its not. You seem to see populism as any movement with a demagougic leader riling up an angry mob.
|
Strawman #8? I’m losing count.
quote:
Populism is a distinct branch of political philosophy, a brach that diifers from Socialism. Populism doesn't call for a state controlled economy, it just wants a social safety net and employment.
|
You are describing a tenet of socialism there, populism is entirely different, see the premise of my piece. It is a method, a human phenomenon as I thought we had previously agreed, now it is a political philosophy? That’s tenuous logic at best.
quote:
Again, I disagree, as I've explained above
|
Well no you haven’t explained it, you’ve just said that you disagree and reiterated your disagreement. I’m sorry to say that many of your efforts to engage my argument have resulted in strawmen despite my attempted and repeated clarifications earlier, this is going to end up being frustrating for both of us if that manner persists.
quote:
National Socialism is a historically distinct government form, and there are certain criteria that must be met to qualify as such.
|
Well again you’ve reiterated your conclusion but there’s nothing else you have provided to support that, except your supposition that the Aryan ideal is necessary to Nazism, which I believe I have debunked. Again, if you wish to say that what you describe as Nazism is simply Hitlerism, I shall accept that, but if you use Nazism my assumption is that you mean National Socialism. It seems so far you are disagreeing that if you have nationalism, and you have socialism, you thus have national socialism? How is that an unreasonable claim? Further to this I am providing an engine (through populism) that such a concept is a consequence of the human tendency to group think and obedience (->populism).
quote:
It would need to meet the criteria I listed in the previous post.
|
Why?
quote:
label that is applied to governments with particular, extreme degrees of both those elements.
|
To me, label = definition. If you mean label in the sense of a colloquialism then you presumably cannot use that as a definition. But then, that is too caught up in connotations. I see no reason to change a definition simply because the consequences of that are unpalatable, but do not affect the logic behind that.
You seem to accept that the holocaust had human causes, and was a human problem, it puzzles me that you do not get the argument I am making between that and national socialism.
quote:
he label National Socialist has meaning beyond simply breaking it down to component parts. Governments can have a high degree of nationalism and some socialist elements, but I wouldn't call them National Socialist, because that label has a seperate meaning, a meaning that is deeper than "semantics"
|
If that meaning is contained within the definition, then it comes down to necessary and sufficient conditions and the relationship, in this case, between that and the engine for its being, in which case populism is necessary but not sufficient. What you’re doing is almost like saying that the SS weren’t human but were German. It seems an absurd claim.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
I think that we're getting too caught up in attaching different meanings to our key terms. You're missing the point as to where I'm disagreeing with you.
Stop me where I'm wrong:
I understand what you're getting at when you mention the "degrees and measures": there's a contium of nationalism, and a continuim of socialism. You're saying that, depending on their place on the continuim, governments can be slightly national socialist all the way to completely national socialist. In effect, there's a continuim of "national socialism" (I say continuim, but it would really look more like a graph, with the y-axis as nationalism, and the x-axis as socialism. However, I'm going to say continuim for convenience sake)
Leaders using populist-style appeals to emotions and fear can slide a government further down the national socialist continuim towards the totally national socialist point. This is because populists tend to appeal to nationalism, and the egalitarianism inherent in nationalism can spur an elitist type socialism within the nation. I agree with that as well.
Finally, don't simply pin the evils of Nazism on the Germans, because part of the reason that they could achieve power and abuse it so was because of a natural human tendency to group think and obey. The point: "It could happen here." I agree with that as well, but I don't think that you adequately emphasize the fact that outside stimuli are also important. The populist mechanism that you are describing doesn't work nearly as well if most people in a country are living comfortably. Therefore, IMO, countries that are economically well off have a smaller chance of sliding down the national socialist continuim, because that populist mechanism cannot work adequately enough to create the sense of danger necessary to want to give up freedom to a leader.
Much of our dispute is labeling(defining terms). You think (as far I understand) that its perfectly fine to say a government is slightly national socialist, moderately national socialist, extremely national socialist or whatever, depending on where it falls on the national socialist continuim. I understand that. I'm saying that I wouldn't call a country that exhibits national socialist traits a "Nazi" party until it reaches a certain threshold on that continuim.
To me, its the difference between a democratic party and the Democratic party. There's a whole continuim of parties that support democracy to some extent, some more, some less. They are what we call here in the US "small d" parties. However, there is also the Democratic party (the big D Democrats), which stands for a certain platform. If you called a group a democratic group, that would just mean that it supports liberalism. However, if you say that the group is like the Democrats, you are saying that the group has beliefs substantially similar to the Democratic party. The listener could then extrapolate and come to a pretty good conclusion as for what exactly that party stands.
To me, it seems that the same thing could be done with your national socialism continuim. Little letter "national socialists" would fall somewhere on the spectrum on supporting an exclusionary socialist society. However, I would only call a group Nazi if it met the threshold of what the NSDAP stood for: hyper-racism, belligerent militarism, Fürher led party dictatorship, some capitalism in a state striving for autarchy. Call it Hitlerism if you like, because that's what I am refering to.
If a group merely has "national socialist" tendencies, I think that its incorrect to call that group "big N" National Socialists, unless of course that group has met the NSDAP threshold on the national socialist continuim. You can be "national socialist" without being Nazi in the same way that you can be democratic without being a Democrat. Since Nazi has such connotations, I think its unfair to call a group "Nazi" unless it meets or passes the NSDAP/Hitlerist/Nazi threshold on the continuim. Otherwise, you should only say that the party has "national socialist" tendencies.
A party can be slightly "national socialist" in its policies, but it cannot be slightly "Nazi, because that's a distinct category on your proposed "national socialist" continuim. Its either in the Nazi/NSDAP/Hitlerist range of the continuim or its not. You can say that that's just playing semantics. I think that its a distinction, and no more playing semantics than distinguishing between a "democrat" (a supporter of liberalism") and a "Democrat" (a person who holds the same beliefs/ almost the same beliefs held by the Democratic party)
My problems with this article are two fold:
1. It seems a bit like scaremongering. If I am reading it correctly, you are justifying calling any party that comes anywhere close to the NSDAP on your continuim a "Nazi" party. I think this is disengenuous, because of exactly what I've mentioned ad naseum: they're not at that point on the spectrum yet. Maybe the BNP is there, you know that better than me. If so, then its more correct calling them Nazis, because they are Britain's Nazi equivalent. However, if there's a party that is only moderately national socialist according to the continuim, then I think its unfair to call them "Nazis", because they aren't equivalent to the NSDAP.
2. I think you attribute too much to the power of populist appeal. Populist demagouges can only take a group so far; the external situations acts as a constraint to the power of populist appeal. Your part about being vigilant ignores this to a greater degree than I'm comfortable with, because it implies that outside forces aren't that important and, without vigilance, a nationalist group will invariably lead to totalitarianism no matter the circumstances. I think that that leads to unfair discrimination to nationalists who would only be "slight" or "moderate national socialists" on your continuim. You better watch those people or, before you know it, we'll all be erecting concentration camps. It goes too far in stygmatizing moderate nationalists.
BTW, My reference to the Populist political theory in my previous post was a response to you saying that my idea of 'economic populism' was merely socialist. I interpreted your response as you confusing the two. I was actually the one who was confused My use of Populism and Populist didn't have anything to do with your usage of populism in the sense of the general, generic sense of a "populist appeal" to unsophisticated, agitated people. My usage was in the sense of the more specific usage of the term Populism, referring to the distinct brand of Populist political movement with particular associated ideals, such as the American Populist party (hence my WJB reference). I should have realized this, but my preconcieved notion of what Populism means and when that term would be used blinded me to the way in which you were using that term. There again is a case of the same term used in different ways leading to confusion between us.
Last edited by Wycoff on 11-02-2005 at 12:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Thorgal
|
|
Tarifa, Cádiz.
Jan 2002
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Not particularly true. The first fascist regime was Italy, which was technically victorious in WW1, and it occured well before the Depression. Fascism is an answer to the problems of modernity and discontent at the old social order, and no particular set of circumstances is necessary- Look at how the fascists won in Spain, whcih had not been in any foreign wars since 1898. There fascism grew as a counterforce to the left leaning Republican government. |
No true. Spain was involved in an extremely bloody colonialist war in Morocco since 1906 to 1931. Spain finally won but it was at a high cost and it was a very unpopular war, and it a major cause that triggered the uprising of Miguel Primo de Rivera (father of Jose Antonio, although most people say Miguel was not fascist) in 1923. His dictatorship lasted to 1931 whit the approval of the king Alfonso XIII, In 1931 Primo de Rivera was hurled down and was established the 2ª Republic.
Last edited by Thorgal on 11-02-2005 at 07:10
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
The KKK are anti current government. They are not anti government, or libertarians. The sons and grandsons of KKK members are most often the christian fundamentalists of the southern states. |
These KKK/Militia/Survivalist types are anti-government in general. From my experience there are two types of Libertarians, the "hippy" libertarians (for lack of a better term) who want as few laws and punishments as possible, and the "black helicopter" libertarians, who hate and fear the federal government and yearn for the days of the Articles of Confederation and carry the Confederate Flag and the "Don't Tread on Me" flag. They are white supremecists, but they also hate government power in general. They want to live alone in their mountain stronghold.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-02-2005 07:21
|
|