Populism and Nazism

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Too long...

but why do people get all upset by far right, fascist-esqe parties, but not get upset over far left, communist parties? Communists have been responsible for more murders in this world than fascists, why are they acceptable in Europe?

Not that I mean to defend the BNP or any other far-right party.

Because we identify proper enemies.

[OzzyKP]

The US was helping fight Nazism too, and we weren't even being invaded. Nor did we take over a bunch of countries in the process.

How many people have been killed by individualism?

[Whaleboy]

How many people have been killed by individualism?

A more fitting question would be "how many people have been killed by patriotism or nationalism?" I'm betting no less than an 8 figure number.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
How many people have been killed by individualism?

If you mean by people who defend individualism, probably more than by people who defend communism.

[Odin]

Good article, Whaleboy.

I have always been suspicious of populism because in almost invariably leads to a tyrannical demogouge or Tyranny by Majorty, and is often coupled with racism and/or ethnocentrism and virulent hyper-nationalism

[Wycoff]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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?

Stalin's evil can't be pinned on him by calling him a Nazi. He was a different creature.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=3613411#post3613411

[Verto]

Summary

[Whaleboy]

Populism -> nationalism and socialism = Nazism

Nationalism -> populism and socialism = Nazism

Socialism -does not always lead to populism = not necessarily Nazi.

In populism people's opinion affects and limits the populist leaders, while the leader is able to manipulate the people's opinion.

[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.

[Wycoff]

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.

[Whaleboy]

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.

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").

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?).

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?

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?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


A more fitting question would be "how many people have been killed by patriotism or nationalism?" I'm betting no less than an 8 figure number.

I'd call a nine figure number.