Do your principles make you a closet National Socialist?

1. 71

   ledefensetechposted 15 years ago

   The Nazi philosophy can be broken down into five major principles.  Interestingly enough Communism/socialism shares many of the same principles.  Which makes sense if you fascism and communism as two halves of the same coin.  Those five principles are:
   
   Collectivism
   Instinct
   Zero-sum conflict
   Authoritarianism
   Socialism
   
   Collectivism
   
   Individuals must suborn their wants and needs to the society at large.  People are members of groups and gain identity from those groups, not from their individuality.
   
   Instinct
   
   Passion and creativity are the only guides to truth. 
   
   Zero-sum conflict
   
   You can only get what you need by taking it from someone else.
   
   Authoritarianism
   
   The mass of humanity is too clueless to make the right decision, the elite should rule in a top down manner.
   
   Socialism
   
   Central direction of the economy for the "common good".
   
   Far too often we bandy words about without regard to their definition.  So in the spirit of honesty, evaluate those five principles and see if they resonate with you.

   replyreport
   1. 92

      thooghunposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      In this sense collectivism sounds very much like Hobbes's leviathan, which I personally find tragic. Surrendering  ourselves to a higher centralized power will always beg the question, "what justifies it?".I suppose you could call me an individualist by comparison.
      
      On Authoritarianism: The masses can be wrong, but so can an individual or an elite caste. Yes, the tyranny of the majority is often mentioned when criticizing democracy, but lets take a step back and look at what one man's policies did for his country during the second world war.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      EmpressFelicityposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      One feature of dictatorships in history (both left- and right-wing) is that it's compulsory to pay lip service to the prevailing ideology.  People can't just opt out and not take part, they have to actively affirm their belief in the system no matter how crazy it is.  In fact, it helps with the subjugation process if the beliefs in question are complete b******s. 
      
      I actually wrote a hub about just this subject a while back, called You've Got To Fight For Your Right NOT To Party.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Madame Xposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks for posting that about your hub EF, I'd like to read it. But there is no such thing as a right-wing dictatorship. The extreme right is anarchy, no government, while the extreme left is total government.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            EmpressFelicityposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Hmmm, not sure about that.  Though in practice, the "right wing" dictatorships (such as Hitler and the Nazis) have so much in common with socialist/left wing dictatorships that you could say they were more or less alike.  The difference (and it's a cosmetic one, I grant you) is that while under socialist/left wing dictatorships the state owns all property, under a right wing dictatorship you have the *appearance* of private property, but with such heavy regulation and surveillance, and with such overweening government power, that your property can be taken from you at any time by the government.
            
            Although I don't agree with all of Ayn Rand's views, she did come up with a lot of fantastic insights and this article in particular is very interesting: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/fasci … alism.html.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Madame Xposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               The nazis and Hitler we very far left. The definitions of different forms of government have been badly distorted by those who wish to continue in their tyranny without an unsuspecting public getting wise to it. There is no such thing as a right-wing dictatorship. The far right is anarchy.
               
               If you have an "appearance" of something, for myself, I never take anyone else's definition of what they say it is. Various forms of government have specific attributes. If what they say something is has those attributes then I might be inclined to listen to them.
               
               And thanks for the Ayn Rand link

               replyreport
   3. 69

      Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I think you left out anti-Semitism and eugenics.

      replyreport
2. 0

   Madame Xposted 15 years ago

   But, but, weren't the Nazis right wing ???

   replyreport
3. 71

   ledefensetechposted 15 years ago

   Only if you're a political ignoranus.

   replyreport
4. 0

   Madame Xposted 15 years ago

   

   replyreport
5. 61

   mikelongposted 15 years ago

   Led....the main issue is fascism......
   
   All the things you mention can be found in non-national socialist realms....but it is the specific spin one uses...like in this case fascism, that brings it all together....
   
   I wrote about this in an article I wrote about Lebensborn...
   
   
   You also require perpetual warfare..............
   
   
   The United States carries lots of these characteristics...
   
   While many profess the "American individual".......there are many ways that this perspective can be viewed in another light...
   
   "socialism"...it depends on who is gaining the rewards...did "socialism" in NAZI Germany apply to those of the German population deemed "unwanted"?
   
   ...Plutocracy..........The American government has no problem giving hand outs to the wealthy....or to the favored...from land "gifts" to Bush tax breaks....
   
   Oil companies here in California, instead of the conception that business is being taxed into the ground, pay little to no tax.....while they strip our state's resources...like they do in Nigeria...
   
   Gifts.......
   
   and for the land that companies like these own....Prop 13 ensures that they pay minimum property tax.....

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Madame Xposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      All the things you mention are going on here and that does indeed make us national socialists.
      
      At least, according to the government.

      replyreport
   2. 71

      ledefensetechposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      No the main issue is defining the principles that lead to the establishment of dictatorial regimes in the 20th century.  Those dictatorships murdered far more people than any other institution has in the history of the world.  Unless we understand how and why they had the appeal they had, we run the risk of establishing that sort of thing even here.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Madame Xposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         The appeal seems to be not having to take responsibility for yourself.

         replyreport
         1. 71

            ledefensetechposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            The appeal is the lure of total power.  Personally I'd rather play the Sims 3, those Sims are hard enough to control, real people are worse.

            replyreport
   3. 0

      LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      .......The American government also has no problem giving hand outs to the poor.....or to the middle class.......the gift of tax breaks.........

      replyreport
6. 71

   ledefensetechposted 15 years ago

   On authoritarianism, yes individuals as well as autocrats can be wrong, but if I as in individual am wrong the consequences only affect me and possibly those around me.  If, however, as a tyrant I am wrong, the results are disastrous for the nation, or in the case of the Second World War, the world. 
   
   It doesn't matter what an autocrat "does" for a nation, sooner or later they'll slip up and common people will pay.   To look at a less controversial example.  Julius Caesar made a bid for ultimate power.  His failure plunged the Roman world into civil war and paved the way for people like Caligula and Nero to seize ultimate power.

   replyreport
7. 0

   EmpressFelicityposted 15 years ago

   From that Ayn Rand lexicon in my previous post comes a quote from none other than ol' Adolf himself, which is so, so reminiscent of my country today:
   
   [Adolf Hitler on Nazism and socialism:] “Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism—not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper . . . .
   
   “[T]he people about us are unaware of what is really happening to them. They gaze fascinated at one or two familiar superficialities, such as possessions and income and rank and other outworn conceptions. As long as these are kept intact, they are quite satisfied. But in the meantime they have entered a new relation; a powerful social force has caught them up. They themselves are changed. What are ownership and income to that? Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”

   replyreport
8. 63

   Greek Oneposted 15 years ago

   You have to agree on what "far right" and "far left" mean before you can say if the Nazis where one of the other.
   
   If you consider 'far right' to be socially conservative and xenophobic to the extreme then yes, the Nazis were far right.

   replyreport
9. 71

   ledefensetechposted 15 years ago

   Try to think of it as a continuum based on the amount of centralized control.
   
   
   Autocracy     Progressivism           Republicanism     Anarchy
   
   Communist                             
   
   Fascist
   
   Both communism and fascism stand for a total takeover of society by a ruling class.  Communism backs "the workers", Fascism backs the national government.  We have to start using the correct terms.  Right and left are about the amount of power governments have.  Communism and Fascism are just two types of autocratic, centralized governments.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      EmpressFelicityposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      It kind of gets a bit fuzzy in the middle of the top line, between autocracy and anarchy.  Is progressivism always closer to autocracy than republicanism?  In your American system, my impression is that republicans want less government intervention than progressives when it comes to economonic policies, but support *more* government intervention in social policy (e.g. they're in favour of stricter drug laws).

      replyreport
      1. 61

         EFPotterposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         You have your definitions right. Progressives want government control in the economy (welfare, regulation) but doesn't want to government to say what people can or can don't for themselves (gay marriage, abortion), conservatives want government to stay out of the money but stop people from doing things they morally disagree with (gay marriage, abortion). This is a generalization--mostly true.
         
         I don't think republicanism would allow for an autocracy. It doesn't get much more "big government" than a dictator and oppressive all-knowing State.

         replyreport
      2. 71

         ledefensetechposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         No.  You can't just see the two parties in this country as two halves of the same coin.  The Dems, for example, have labor, environmentalists, Progressives and Communists in their ranks.  The Republicans have conservatives, libertarians, fundamentalists, fascists in their ranks.  No one party is monolithic, unlike many European parliamentary systems we have two large umbrella parties, not a multitude of parties that typify European politics. 
         
         This year should be very interesting.  Since the end of WW II, the turnout for voting has been about 50%.  It was higher in 1945, but has steadily declined over the years and stands at about 50% today.  The 50% of non-voters is what I call "the other half".  Among the voting public, you can expect 40% to go Republican and 40% Democrat.  The remaining 20% "independents" really decided elections.  Now it would seem that "the other 50%" is taking an interest in politics for the first time in a long time.  Since most of them haven't voted before, the way they will vote is pretty much unknown and is going to throw all political calculation off.  It is my belief that this "other half" is what got Scott Brown elected and is probably going to cost Dems control of the Senate and maybe even the House in November.  Furthermore Republicans are going to be the short term winners, but we could see a repeat of 2008, if the party goes back to it's behavior under the Bush administration.  In that case, I'd expect to see a viable third party emerge, possibly in 2012, more likely in 2014 and definitely in 2016.
         
         No Ralph I didn't and you're showing you historical ignorance again.  Fascism was tried in other countries besides Germany and they did not have the racial component that German fascism did.  Italy may have been pressured by Germany to turn over Jews, but the Italian people did not have the virulent hatred of Jews that consumed the German people.  Likewise Spain was ruled by a fascist government far longer than any other nation in the world, yet Spanish fascism was not known for virulent racism or eugenics.
         
         Actually Progressives want to tell you how to live socially, they try to force things like gay marriage and abortion on society regardless of what the individual thinks.  It's really a dichotomy between what you consider the basis of society.  Do you consider individualism important or do you consider the collective important.  You really can't do both or be subjective and apply individualism to certain situations and collectivism to others.

         replyreport
         1. 69

            Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            "You really can't do both or be subjective and apply individualism to certain situations and collectivism to others."
            
            Why not? Laws are adopted where there is a significant, demonstrable public interest in limiting individual behavior--for example restrictions on the manufacture, sale, ownership and use of guns, e.g., guns are not allowed in public buildings, schools, etc. Building codes are adopted out of the collective interest in minimum quality standards for buildings and homes. In San Francisco, building codes require earthquake resistant construction. In the collective interest racial discrimination is prohibited. Private clubs and religious organizations are, for the most part free to limit membership as they chose. Private sexual behavior for the most part in one's home is left up to the individual as are many other unregulated choices. Private property is subject to condemnation in the collective interest by eminent domain.
            
            And nobody is trying to "force abortion on society," and progressives support leaving decisions wrt marriage up to the individuals rather than forcing them to conform to "collective" norms.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               EmpressFelicityposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               Actually, this is one area where I wholeheartedly support government intervention.  If I lived in San Fransisco or any other city in an earthquake zone, I'd jolly well want the buildings in that city to be earthquake-resistant.  You can't sue a building company once you're lying dead under a pile of rubble.
               
               
               
               
               This is where it gets fuzzy, because discrimination is often hard to prove.  I'm not a fan of anti-discrimination laws (I'm talking about *any* kind of anti-discrimination law, not just racial discrimination ones).  They don't work, and they often seem to favour people who game the system.
               
               
               
               
               I wrote my bit before I read yours...looks as though we agree on this particular subject, even if we don't on many others.

               replyreport
            2. 71

               ledefensetechposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               Why not?  Ralph are you aware that most fire codes and earthquake codes just follow those of Underwriter's Laboratories?  All government codes just use UW as the basis for their law.  Putting this into law is totally unnecessary. 
               
               http://mises.org/story/3440
               http://blog.mises.org/archives/007587.asp
               http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/
               
               How else do you think this stuff gets done?  We hear stories practically every day that regulatory agencies are underfunded and understaffed.  UL takes this weakness and makes it a strength.  By maintaining a high standard, they get companies to make safety a priority, so much so that to have the UW symbol marks a product as safe as it can be.
               
               EF you're missing the point of the value of UW.  If I were a building owner I'd trumpet the fact that I met or exceeded the codes of UW.  Think about it.  In the absence of laws, you would still have the problem of allaying people's fears about the safety of the building, would you not?  That's why the laws make you feel better.  Yet without those laws, it would be incumbent upon the landlord to make his tenants feel better about the safety of his or her building.  UW provides a truly neutral party, whose interest is only in defending the good name of their brand, that's how you can trust them.  As opposed to laws, many of which are mired in politics and often times have the opposite effect of the intent.
               
               Anti-discrimination laws are discriminatory.  It doesn't matter why you murder someone, murder is murder.  To say that a murder is worse because the assailant and victim had different skin color is racist.  What about "black on black" crime or "white on white" crime?  Does that make the assailant in these cases racist against their own "race"?  You see how stupid this stuff gets?  It all goes back to the main fallacy of collectivism.  Under collectivism you are no longer appraised on your actions as an individual, but your actions as part of some arbitrarily defined group.
               
               Yes Ralph, you do force abortion on someone when you attempt to use tax money to facilitate the practice.  That, in a nutshell, is why I'm so opposed to taxation.  While I agree that someone should have th right to choose, I also have the right to withhold my support for such things.  In a way, Ralph, we agree on the social aspects.  What I disagree with is that the state should "allow" gays to marry.  If a gay couple wants to take advantage of an employee sponsored health plan, well that's between the employer and employee, is it not?  If the employee is a hard and valuable worker, then a smart employer will allow it, won't they?  Even if they don't, that good employee will probably look for an employer who will allow his or her partner to take advantage of the job benefits.  That's the difference, Ralph.  Rather than force a top-down solution, leaving the decision up to individuals is a much less conflict-laden way to go about things.
               
               EF, what about the Liberal party?  Are they still in existence?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  EmpressFelicityposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  They've morphed into something called the Liberal Democrats, which always runs a poor third behind Labour and the Conservatives in any election.
                  
                  They're pretty much the same as Labour and the Conservatives though.  (If you nurtured any hopes that they were "classical liberals", then I'm afraid I shall have to dash those hopes.)

                  replyreport
                  1. 71

                     ledefensetechposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     Oh no, while I know little about the political parties in the UK, I do know that classical liberal politics were abandoned there about the same time they were abandoned here; the early 20th century.  Progressivism, communist or fascist, was what "men of ideas" were discussing at the time and that was reflected in the policies and politics of the time.
                     
                     I've seen rumblings about a British "Tea Party", is there anything to that?

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        EmpressFelicityposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                        There is, but I only found out about it a minute or so ago, by Googling it(!!).  I only read newspapers/watch the TV news intermittently (it does terrible things to my blood pressure), so had no idea until now.
                        
                        
                        http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danie … acked-out/

                        replyreport
                        1. 71

                           ledefensetechposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                           Yeah I hear you.  Funny thing is I didn't watch any news channel before and now since all the Progressives have come out against Fox, I've started watching them.  Very interesting stuff. Some of it is clearly propaganda, but even so, guys like Brett Bayer seem to know it and go with it.
                           
                           That movement is really gratifying to see.  It also dovetails with some rumblings I've heard from other Britons about the crazy spending and regimentation of life that has occurred over the last decade or so.  Do you really have to have sensors in your trash bins to monitor the amount of trash you throw away?

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              EmpressFelicityposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                              In some places, yes.
                              
                              http://gordon-brown-election.co.uk/2009 … chip-bins/
                              
                              I am hoping that the law of unintended consequences will make the idea so unworkable that it's completely scrapped, for good.
                              
                              We in Britain have an incredible number of stupid laws/regulations (many though not all of them derived from our EU membership), plus more CCTV cameras per head than just about any country on earth except North Korea.

                              replyreport
                              1. 71

                                 ledefensetechposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                                 Big Brother, indeed.  Well it would seem there is an incipient voter backlash brewing, much as there is here.  With any luck that autocratic monstrosity known as the EU will collapse as well.  "Taxation without Representation" indeed.  Didn't you Brits learn anything from us Yanks? 

                                 replyreport
               2. 0

                  EmpressFelicityposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  I'd never heard of the UW, so that's something new.  However, like any organisation, it's only as good as its employees/members.  There is still the possibility of corruption/fraud (i.e. companies can pay backhanders to fraudulent employees).

                  replyreport
                  1. 71

                     ledefensetechposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     Well sure, but would they have been in business for over a century if they engaged in fraudulent business practices?  Look at Lehman Bros.  It didn't take long for them to fail after they started engaging in fraudulent business practices and they were around long before UW.
                     
                     As for not knowing abut UW, neither did I until I went to the site of the "obsolete" Austrian School of Economics. 
                     
                     Toyota is a great example of how a company has to rectify it's mistakes or it will lose custom and eventually go bankrupt.  They voluntarily recalled all those parts because they knew that if deaths were linked to their cars not only would they lose from the lawsuits, but they'd also lose in the marketplace.  Instead of waiting for Congress to act, they took the initiative.  Do they have commercials in the UK?  Here in the US, Toyota has been working like mad getting the word out about the recall and what they are doing to fix the problem.  It's a very smart move.  By educating people about the problem and fixing it, they're restoring confidence in Toyota cars.  Even so, they've still had a dip in sales, which is only natural as people shy away from their products after the problems surfaced.  That is what keeps business honest.  The threat of losing people's trust in their products.  Turns out people are not just mindless consumers, but individuals who can make choices.

                     replyreport
         2. 0

            EmpressFelicityposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            I live in Britain, where we basically have a two-party system like yours.  (And each party has various shades of opinion too, although we don't seem to have any libertarians and (thankfully) very few fundamentalists.)  There are other British parties but they're small fry compared to the main two.
            
            I certainly do see the two main British parties (Labour and Conservative) as part of the same coin and I would imagine it's much the same for the Republicans and Democrats in the US, despite the apparent differences. In terms of what actually ends up happening in our respective countries, there is far more consensus than each party's manifesto would suggest.  (I call it the "hidden consensus"... been planning to write a hub about it actually.)  In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that a lot of what goes on in the life of any democratic country is independent of which political party is in office. 
            
            
            
            
            Yes, indeed - and yet a lot of people think "fascism" and "racism" are synonymous.  Racism is a component of fascism, but it's not the whole story by any means.
            
            
            
            I'm not gay and I don't feel that gay marriage has been "forced" on us.  It's really not force unless it affects me personally.  I thought libertarianism espoused the freedom of people to enter into contracts?  Surely that's what gay marriage is - a contract (just like heterosexual marriage, albeit a contract with many unwritten rules and loopholes... but don't get me started on that one LOL.  Whole different thread...)

            replyreport
            1. 69

               Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               Good point.

               replyreport