Nazism...

[Mister D]

I don’t think I’m the only one tired of these ridiculous argumentsabout who resembles the Nazis more so let’s not start that here. Thanks inadvance. If you think Obama or Bush resembled Nazis in any meaningful way you’reclueless. Now that that’s out of the way…
The social revolutionary character of Nazism seems to getlost in these stupid attempts at guilt by association. In fact, anyone familiarwith the history of the movement knows that a socialistic sentiment waswidespread among the rank and file as well as among influential figures, suchas the Strasser brothers, Rohm and others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism
Moreover, it was the fear of a general social revolution andthe potential chaos caused by such a revolution that led directly to the Nightof the Long Knives. The call for fundamental social change became so threateningthat Hitler had to act to consolidate his hold on the party. This was notbecause Hitler was doing the bidding of industrialists who mistakenly believedthey could control him. On the contrary, they were doing his. Nor was hemotivated by any rejection of social change per se. Nor was it a desire forpower for power’s sake. The immediate goals were 1) rearmament and 2) the colonizationof the east. Everything had to be subordinated to those goals. Social tumultand the consequent economic tumult simply would not do. Little if any of the above is in serious dispute today.
Anyone who truly wishes to understand a movement, aphilosophy, etc. must at some point learn to deal with it on its own terms. You can't ask a question like "what was Nazism" and remain in your own political world. This is especially true for Americans who have had no historical experience of fascism let alone Nazism or of the premodern traditions those philosophies tried to recall. Sadly,you have one group who remains wedded to the long out of date social science andhistory of the 1950s and 1960s and merely parrots it as if it were authoritative. They use terms like "revisionism" which reveals a grossly deficient philosophy of history. You have another group that is merely a response tothe first and their historical writing can’t be called obsolete onlybecause it was never of any use or interest in the first place. They use terms like "liberal fascism".

[Common Sense]

I don’t think I’m the only one tired of these ridiculous argumentsabout who resembles the Nazis more so let’s not start that here. Thanks inadvance. If you think Obama or Bush resembled Nazis in any meaningful way you’reclueless. Now that that’s out of the way…
The social revolutionary character of Nazism seems to getlost in these stupid attempts at guilt by association. In fact, anyone familiarwith the history of the movement knows that a socialistic sentiment waswidespread among the rank and file as well as among influential figures, suchas the Strasser brothers, Rohm and others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism
Moreover, it was the fear of a general social revolution andthe potential chaos caused by such a revolution that led directly to the Nightof the Long Knives. The call for fundamental social change became so threateningthat Hitler had to act to consolidate his hold on the party. This was notbecause Hitler was doing the bidding of industrialists who mistakenly believedthey could control him. On the contrary, they were doing his. Nor was hemotivated by any rejection of social change per se. Nor was it a desire forpower for power’s sake. The immediate goals were 1) rearmament and 2) the colonizationof the east. Everything had to be subordinated to those goals. Social tumultand the consequent economic tumult simply would not do. Little if any of the above is in serious dispute today.
Anyone who truly wishes to understand a movement, aphilosophy, etc. must at some point learn to deal with it on its own terms. You can't ask a question like "what was Nazism" and remain in your own political world. This is especially true for Americans who have had no historical experience of fascism let alone Nazism or of the premodern traditions those philosophies tried to recall. Sadly,you have one group who remains wedded to the long out of date social science andhistory of the 1950s and 1960s and merely parrots it as if it were authoritative. They use terms like "revisionism" which reveals a grossly deficient philosophy of history. You have another group that is merely a response tothe first and their historical writing can’t be called obsolete onlybecause it was never of any use or interest in the first place. They use terms like "liberal fascism".

I wish I had more time today...

If you want to use Wiki, that's fine...

"
Nazism, or National Socialism in full (German: Nationalsozialismus), is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and state as well as other related far-right groups. It was also contemporaneous or promoted in other European countries, particularly those with large ethnic German communities such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia ^[1] Usually characterised as a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and antisemitism, Nazism originally developed from the influences of pan-Germanism, the Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture in post-First World War Germany, which many Germans felt had been left humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles."

"A majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as a form of far-right politics.^[5] Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements.[6]"

[Chris]

All anyone has to do is read Hayek's The Road to Serfdom to get the intellectual history behind Nazism.

Agree, it really doesn't project out to today's politics, especial in America. Not sure why people get so defensive about that.

[Mister D]

I wish I had more time today...

If you want to use Wiki, that's fine...

"
Nazism, or National Socialism in full (German: Nationalsozialismus), is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and state as well as other related far-right groups. It was also contemporaneous or promoted in other European countries, particularly those with large ethnic German communities such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia ^[1] Usually characterised as a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and antisemitism, Nazism originally developed from the influences of pan-Germanism, the Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture in post-First World War Germany, which many Germans felt had been left humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles."

"A majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as a form of far-right politics.^[5] Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements.[6]"

I'm not sure what you are trying to say? Did you disagree on a point?

[Alyosha]

They had fabulous uniforms and music. I find myself watching every show on the Nazis that I can get my hands on. While I am very much pro-liberty and anti-collectivistic in my leanings, I can admire when those types put on a good show.

The Order of the Teutonic Knights is very romantic even as it is dark.

While I would not wish to live like that I can look at the cool rationality and the ability to get such mass organization within a few years and find that begrudgingly respectable.

[Common Sense]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say? Did you disagree on a point?

Just going back to the other thread (sorry for the cross over) and the misunderstanding we had about where on the political spectrum Nazism would fall. That's all, carry on.

[Mister D]

Just going back to the other thread (sorry for the cross over) and the misunderstanding we had about where on the political spectrum Nazism would fall. That's all, carry on.

Oh, I agree. In the European context that's correct, IMO. Once we leave that context, it no longer makes any sense. Liberal finance capitalists (a large and influentia segment of American conservatives), the "Christian Right", and libertarians can hardly be called right wing in the sense that we call Nazism right wing.

[Alyosha]

It's just labeling. Hitler was not "Christian". He was an esotericist and occultist. He was a socialist but not a Bolshevik. By many standards he more resembled progressives for it is they who wish to create a perfect society.

[Common Sense]

It's just labeling. Hitler was not "Christian". He was an esotericist and occultist. He was a socialist but not a Bolshevik. By many standards he more resembled progressives for it is they who wish to create a perfect society.

Oh Christ...here we go again...

[Chris]

Just going back to the other thread (sorry for the cross over) and the misunderstanding we had about where on the political spectrum Nazism would fall. That's all, carry on.

Nazism doesn't fall anywhere along the modern American political spectrum. To try and force it is parochial and anachronistic.