Populism and Nazism

[Kuciwalker]

Nine figures, yeah, but barely... I don't think it's near 200 milliion.

[Whaleboy]

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.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Nine figures, yeah, but barely... I don't think it's near 200 milliion.

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.

[Kuciwalker]

WWII had something like 30-40 million, didn't it? Assume WWI had similar numbers, and the rest of the wars push it over the 100 million mark.

[Whaleboy]

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!

[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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Wycoff]

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.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Wycoff
IMO, severe economic distress and a defeat in a recent war are two major prerequisites for a Fascist takeover. Fascism only thrives when large numbers of people are financially insecure AND have/feel reason to fear neighboring countries or minorities within their own country. Without those two factors, no Fascist party will ever grow to be anything more than a fringe group, as the majority of people in the society are too secure to want such a radical change.

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.

[GePap]

I must over agree with Wycoff on the meaning of nationalism- xenophobia and tribalism are not the same as nationalism.
True nationalism is a modern notion, born of the French Revolution. Wars by ancient kings ruling by devine right are NOT nationalistic in any sense- Monarchs have subjects, whose "nationality" is irrelevant, since the Monarch rules thanks to the Grace of God and HIs Laws, meaning what culture and language the subject speaks is irrelevant to the legitimacy of rule over him.

[GePap]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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?

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.

[Whaleboy]

Sorry, Ben Kenobi moment

[GePap]

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.

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]

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]

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?

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.

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.

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 .