Populism and Nazism

[GePap]

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?

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.

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.

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

[Whaleboy]

that does not mean Nationalism is a distinct, modern idelogy. As for soccer riots, how much of that is human herd behavior?

That nationalism is a distinct, modern ideology is not my claim. How much of nationalism is human herd behaviour? To answer "greatly" or "entirely", *is* my claim.

[Wycoff]

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.

[Odin]

Nationalism has it's roots in our tribal natures, we share with chimpanzees a instinctive "us versus them" dicotomy between the individual's group and outsiders. Humans and chimps are also the only animals to attack other groups unprovoked.

[Whaleboy]

Well, out of tribalism not hunger

[Wycoff]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

(and presumably that Nazism is merely sufficient to this Aryan ideal?),

Not sure what you mean here

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

What you have described there is socialism.

Again, I disagree, as I've explained above

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.

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.

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"

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.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Jaguar

World War I helps a lot. And then I'm sure there's stuff in Asia caused by Nationalism that we aren't as aware of. Anyway, it's comfortably nine figures.

What about the wars against Communism? do they count?

[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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

It would need to meet the criteria I listed in the previous post.

Why?

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.

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.

[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?

They have socialist elements in their organisational structure and philosophy and despite their rhetoric they speak of egalitarianism if you are white and a struggle against the liberal elite. Note the term I used initially of exclusive socialism. Their nationalism/racialism/tribalism/groupism et al cannot be doubted and to top it all they (well at least were) populists. It's difficult nowadays because as far as I know they bear more resemblance to a paramilitary organisation, less populist elements than during the civil unrest in the 60's, hence less socialism admittedly.

Still Nazi, but less Nazi than in the 60's. They suck hard nontheless.

[Kidlicious]

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.

[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.

[Thorgal]

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.

[Wycoff]

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.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wycoff


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.

mmmmkay, but Berzerker is going to have a word with you about that I think.