20
   

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 07:25 am
A few more thoughts about this, oe, after studying Mein Kampf more, the following principally extracted from the section titled "Philosophy and Party."

One point concerning Hitler's observations, one he seems to be correct on, in regard to Communists, that they will use democracy to gain power, but then discard it when in power. Ironic that Hitler essentially does the same thing he accuses them of, which I consider a leftist trait, one which is deceitful and hypocritical.

"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extermination. If today they came to the conviction that from the witches' cauldron of our parliamentary democracy a majority could be brewed, which - and even if only on the basis of its legislating majority - would seriously attack Marxism, the parliamentary jugglery would come to an end at once. "

He talks about religious views and then compares "folkish" views, so he seems to be conjuring up a political movement akin to the fervor and mindset of a religion.

" The situation with the term 'folkish' is similar to that with the term 'religious.' In it, too, there lie various basic realizations.

Hitler even seems to give credence to Marx, essentially agreeing with Marx about the "existing poison," which must include things like capitalism, etc., but concludes it is for the purpose of the Jews:

"And hence international Marxism itself is only the transference, by the Jew, Karl Marx, of a philosophical attitude and conception, which had actually long been in existence, into the form of a definite political creed. Without the subsoil of such generally existing poisoning, the amazing success of this doctrine would never have been possible. Actually Karl Marx was only the one among millions who, with the sure eye of the prophet, recognized in the morass of a slowly decomposing world the most essential poisons, extracted them, and, like a wizard, prepared them into a concentrated solution for the swifter annihilation of the independent existence of free nations on this earth. And all this in the service of his race."

Then Hitler goes on to essentially doing the same thing, but for his chosen race or nationality:

"In opposition to this, the folkish philosophy finds the importance of mankind in its basic racial elements. In the state it sees on principle only a means to an end and construes its end as the preservation of the racial existence of man. Thus, it by no means believes in an equality of the races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated, through this knowledge, to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe. Thus, in principle, it serves the basic aristocratic idea of Nature and believes in the validity of this law down to the last individual. It sees not only the different value of the races, but also the different value of individuals. From the mass it extracts the importance of the individual personality, and thus, in contrast to disorganizing Marxism, it has an organizing effect. It believes in the necessity of an idealization of humanity, in which alone it sees the premise for the existence of humanity. But it cannot grant the right to existence even to an ethical idea if this idea represents a danger for the racial life of the bearers of a higher ethics; for in a bastardized and niggerized world all the concepts of the humanly beautiful and sublime, as well as all ideas of an idealized future of our humanity, would be lost forever.

Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe."


In my attempt to pinpoint exactly what Hitler viewed as the goal or description of what he endlessly talks about as the "folkish philosophy" or "folkish state," I find it interesting that he draws one primary distinction between Marxism and the "Folkish" view is that Marxism exists as an international world view, while Hitler views the utopian goal within a racial or nationally contained unit. I draw this from the following quote:

"Not until the international world view- politically led by organized Marxism - is confronted by a folkish world view, organized and led with equal unity, will success, supposing the fighting energy to be equal on both sides, fall to the side of eternal truth."

And finally, the following seems to indicate the 25 points are essentially what defines the "folkish world view," or what defines the goal that Hitler refers to but seems to me to fail to ever adequately define. My conclusion is that Hitler was truly a mental case, and a dishonest one as well, so we are left guessing as to what he was truly about, which was power for himself that he himself did not acknowledge. It almost seems like the 25 points of the party are an after thought, but a necessity to give the people something to adhere to and fight for, as in a religion.

"A philosophy can only be organizationally comprehended on the basis of a definite formulation of that philosophy, and what dogmas represent for religious faith, party principles are for a political party in the making.

Hence an instrument must be created for the folkish world view which enables it to fight, just as the Marxist party organization creates a free path for internationalism.

This is the goal pursued by the National Socialist German Workers' Party."


As a summary of all of this, oe, I think Hitler saw some reasoning to Marxism and even agreed with parts of it, as relates to the "poison" that it sought to replace, which I interpret to be capitalism / Jewish ways / etc., but since Hitler reviled Jews, he came up with an alternate philosophy, or third way, wherein he could capitalize on a nationalistic or racial approach to righting all the wrongs for the common good of the "folks."

So in my opinion, the true goal of all of this was power, in the case of communism it was power to people like Stalin, and in Hitler's case, it was power for him. That of course is not how they justified things, Hitler's stated goal was the "folkish philosophy" or "folkish state," what I interpret to be the common good of the people, but to achieve that, it took a strong state and a pure race. Thus the 25 points incorporate those points of a strong state, a pure race of citizens, and how they would interact to achieve the remaing points or goals of the movement.


0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 09:33 am
@okie,
okie wrote:
I thought I explained it adequately. You asked what I viewed as the central goal of Nazism, and I think it was the utopia he envisioned.


I'm still not sure what you think the central goal is, though. You're saying here that the central goal is "the utopia he envisioned", but you don't seem to describe what kind of utopia you think Hitler was trying to build.

I also think that this is an extremely important point. It illustrates the differences between the vision for the future that these ideologies had at their core and the actual, real-world results. And it also shows where the state comes in, and what role the government plays.


Marx, for example, envisioned Communism as a classless and stateless society. Class struggle would have ceased to exist. There would be common ownership of the land, of the means of production, distribution and finance. An intermediate step, though, would be Socialism. A government would still exist, but it would be a society ruled by the workers rather than by the traditional ruling classes. It would be the step after the oppressive classes would have been overthrown in a revolution, and the role of the government would be to establish conditions that would ultimately lead to Communism.

That's very different from the utopian society Hitler envisioned, where the Aryan race would dominate all the other races. The parasitic races would have been eliminated, inferior races would have been enslaved and the superior Germanic race would have spread its sphere of influence over a good part of the globe. The notions of state, nation and race were used almost interchangeably. The role of the state would therefore be to eliminate inferior elements from society and extend the border of the German state.


okie wrote:
A strong state and a pure race were both things that Hitler viewed as necessary to get there, but they were not necessarily the goals in and of themselves.


I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.


okie wrote:
Since Nazism was about the people, his view of the the common good, Hitler knew it took a strong state to enforce it.


This, I do not understand at all. Maybe it's just a language problem, but I don't know what you mean by "Nazism was about the people".

I also don't know what you mean by "Nazism was about [Hitler's] view of the the common good".

I'm not trying to dispute what you're saying here - I simply fail to understand what you mean by that.


I agree that in Hitler's ideology, only a strong state could enforce the Nazi ideology, but I honestly fail to understand the rest of what you're saying here.


okie wrote:
He also viewed the Jews and their capitalistic ways as a poison to his view of a utopian society or culture, so they were to be defeated and weeded out.


I agree with that. Hitler did not think that free market capitalism was the best economical system to establish a strong state and create a racially pure nation.

He also saw capitalism as a means used by the Jews to subvert other nations. In that regard, he could draw on a long history of discrimination and anti-Semitism in Europe that linked Jews to everything that had to do with money. For a long time, churches and rulers had prohibited Jews to work in many professions, while at the same time professions that had to do with money were regarded as inferior or sinful for Christians. The result was that Jews were pushed into professions like accounting, rent-collecting or moneylending.


okie wrote:
I don't know why this needs to be complicated to you.


I don't know why you would think this is complicated. I would say that, at it's core, Nazism is a pretty straightforward ideology.


okie wrote:
I don't see it that different from communism or Marxism.


I'm not really sure why you would reach this conclusion.

I also think that it's hard to talk about the similarities and differences between those ideologies as long as I'm at a loss of what you would describe as the central elements of Nazism (or Marxism, for that matter).

Again, this might just be a language problem or failure on my side to understand what you're saying.


okie wrote:
Hitler's main problem with Marx seemed to be his Jewish roots, and so he also thought Marxism exploited the masses to achieve its goal. I am not so sure there would have been that much disagreement if not for that problem.


Marx's Jewish roots were certainly an additional reason for Hitler to dismiss the ideology of Socialism and Communism. He argued that Marx's calls for revolution and for overthrowing the ruling classes were simply another Jewish conspiracy to bring down the German nation and the Germanic race.


okie wrote:
So, can we agree on the central point of nazism? I don't know.


I'm not sure at this point. I think I have pointed out what I think is the central point of Nazism.

If you disagree with that or think that other elements are more important or at the core of Nazi ideology, we can certainly have that discussion. I'm sure that would be very interesting in itself.


okie wrote:
To tell you the truth, Mein Kampf is one confusing bit of reading, Hitler was not coherent or consistent, and actually not that smart in my opinion. He was to put it bluntly, a serious mental case. So for anyone to study nazism and make grand pronouncements about what it was and what it was not, I am not sure it is entirely possible.


I agree with that. Mein Kampf was written years before the NSDAP came to power. It outlines the steps Hitler thought were necessary for the survival of the Germanic race - to overturn the Treaty of Versailles, to form alliances with other Germanic nations, to fight against enemy nations and finally to expand German territory far into the East to create "living space" for the Aryan race.

But it doesn't outline, for example, how the Jews would be removed from German society. In fact, there were several ideas floated, even as the NSDAP became the ruling party, of what to do with the Jews. The Madagascar Plan was proposed in 1940, suggesting that the entire Jewish population of Europe should be relocated to Madagascar.

Some of the elements that we arguably regard as essential parts of Nazism today - like the Holocaust - are therefore not described in the book.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2009 12:26 pm
Rather than addressing all of your points, which seem to ask me what I mean, I will throw this out there, that perhaps you have a point about the ultimate goal of Nazism, this contained in a quote of Hitler I had above:

"In opposition to this, the folkish philosophy finds the importance of mankind in its basic racial elements. In the state it sees on principle only a means to an end and construes its end as the preservation of the racial existence of man."

So I will give you a point, Hitler was obsessed above almost anything, with race, and he was consumed by hatred for Jews. So the ultimate goal appears to be racial purity, according to Hitler's own words in Mein Kampf, if you use them as a good indicator of what the Nazi Party was.

However, Hitler views race and philosophy as being inseperable, that the Jews and capitalism came as a package deal. And I think you have also agreed that Hitler views capitalism and Jews as a package deal, both come together as the "poison" of the earth. So as my interpretation of Hitler's thought process has come around to the idea that he viewed Marx as brilliantly recognizing the problem, but that Marxism was only a partial solution, that a full solution required the recognition of the racial poison part of the package, thus Hitler's saw his own solution as the complete solution, a solution of racial purity coupled with socialism. The reason racial purity and socialism are inseperable in Hitler's mind is the fact that he viewed much of the cultural and political poison being directly due to the thinking process bred into the races.

So my conclusion is that the folkish philosophy or Nazi goal was a culture of racial purity linked inseperably with socialism. And these are outlined in the 25 points.

Are we getting closer to agreement so far?

P.S. As a matter of note, your statement: "Marx, for example, envisioned Communism as a classless and stateless society," I find that statement or belief by Marx as being totally ignorant of reality. Reality mandates a strong central government, to administer the classless society. The "people" running the state becomes the state, and a mighty powerful one, by necessity.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 09:07 pm
@okie,
Looks like Old Europe abandoned the debate, I am guessing because he didn't like the way the debate was looking for his viewpoint.

Heard an interview today on talk show, Jonah Goldberg, about his book:
"Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning."

So I looked up some links about the book, and I should read the book, but I post the following for now. It was interesting because completely independent of his research and conclusion, I have come to pretty much the same conclusion based upon a review of history, and the politics of Hitler, simply by applying common sense from a perspective of my modern American conservative viewpoint.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/11/goldberg/

"In the book, Goldberg attempts to convince readers that six decades of conventional wisdom that have placed Italy's Benito Mussolini, Germany's Adolf Hitler and fascism on the right side of the ideological spectrum are wrong, and that fascism is really a phenomenon of the left. Goldberg also attributes fascist rhetoric and tactics to Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and describes the New Deal's descendants, modern American liberals, as carriers of this liberal-fascist DNA. In a sense, "We're All Fascists Now," as Goldberg puts it in one of his chapter titles. Salon spoke with Goldberg by phone. "

Another reason why this subject is becoming more interesting and more pertinent is the current events happening around us this very moment, here in the United States in particular. This includes the increasing power of the government, the State, as it gains more clout and ownership of banks, the auto industry, likely the medical industry, and who knows what else before this is all over. Pertinent to ask, where do these policies come from, that are being employed now. They are from the Left, from the Liberal philosophy, from Obama, the idea that big government can fix all of this. There can be no doubt about that fact at all. After all, as Obama said, only the government has the power to do anything to fix the economy.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 02:37 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Looks like Old Europe abandoned the debate, I am guessing because he didn't like the way the debate was looking for his viewpoint.

Heard an interview today on talk show, Jonah Goldberg, about his book:
"Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning."

So I looked up some links about the book, and I should read the book, but I post the following for now. It was interesting because completely independent of his research and conclusion, I have come to pretty much the same conclusion based upon a review of history, and the politics of Hitler, simply by applying common sense from a perspective of my modern American conservative viewpoint.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/11/goldberg/

"In the book, Goldberg attempts to convince readers that six decades of conventional wisdom that have placed Italy's Benito Mussolini, Germany's Adolf Hitler and fascism on the right side of the ideological spectrum are wrong, and that fascism is really a phenomenon of the left. Goldberg also attributes fascist rhetoric and tactics to Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and describes the New Deal's descendants, modern American liberals, as carriers of this liberal-fascist DNA. In a sense, "We're All Fascists Now," as Goldberg puts it in one of his chapter titles. Salon spoke with Goldberg by phone. "

Another reason why this subject is becoming more interesting and more pertinent is the current events happening around us this very moment, here in the United States in particular. This includes the increasing power of the government, the State, as it gains more clout and ownership of banks, the auto industry, likely the medical industry, and who knows what else before this is all over. Pertinent to ask, where do these policies come from, that are being employed now. They are from the Left, from the Liberal philosophy, from Obama, the idea that big government can fix all of this. There can be no doubt about that fact at all. After all, as Obama said, only the government has the power to do anything to fix the economy.


SO STIPULATED.

I have always said that of the fascists n nazis.

The issue is the menace that community threatens
against its creators: the INDIVIDUAL citizens.
Mussolini and Hitler were passionately anti-Individualist.
Roosevelt and Kennedy liberals are authoritarian collectivists .
So were Mussolini and Hitler, whereas the Founders of our Republic
were libertarian Individualists, who knew that personal liberty
is inversely proportionate to the domestic power of government.


Each individual citizen
owes it to himself to be skeptical and very anti-communitarian.





David
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 09:18 am
@OmSigDAVID,
David, well said. I agree totally.

I have found this subject to be quite fascinating, and if you haven't gone back and read the debate I've had here with Old Europe about whether Hitler was a socialist vs not, or whether he was Left vs Right, you might find it interesting. I think oe is a classic example of the intelligentsia, the intellectual elite, that have been successful in portraying Hitler as an example of the ultra right. Thus they attempt to portray conservative Republicans as gravitating to facsism, etc. This cannot be further from the truth, and I have reminded oe here that Hitler was a socialist, and a product of the liberal or leftist mindset, when judged from a modern American view of liberal vs conservative. I had gone back and compared Hitler's politics from Mein Kampf and from the Nazi Party, and I think the conclusion is inescapable, and it is very much as Jonah Goldberg captured in his book, and as I have argued here. I think the liberals attempt to preserve the misconception of Hitler and facisim being ulta-right is crucial to them as an attempt to escape any link or responsibility for their past history with their current politics, and to continue to try to make their current politics look pure and wholesome, when in reality it is clearly muddied by the failures and atrocities that are clearly documented in history. In other words, mankind has tried that before and it didn't work, but they refuse to believe it.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 10:27 am
Quote:
What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?


The absence of Ruth.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 10:34 am
@Setanta,
If you don't have anything intelligent to say, or any counter evidence, which you apparently do not, try to be funny, but you fail at even that.
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 10:36 am
@Setanta,
I would have thought it was the absence of rut...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 10:38 am
You may well be right, Mon Vieux, there are many aspects of the more obscure philological principles which are opaque to me. Much as is Okie's putative sense of humor.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 12:14 pm
The right can always find words to twist facts around, until all evil is spelled liberal. The left, of course, can do the same, only it is spelled conservative. True liberals and conservatives can find ways to make things work. Fanatics don't try.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 12:31 pm
Bravo, EB!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 01:05 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
I have found this subject to be quite fascinating, and if you haven't gone back and read the debate I've had here with Old Europe about whether Hitler was a socialist vs not, or whether he was Left vs Right, you might find it interesting. I think oe is a classic example of the intelligentsia, the intellectual elite, that have been successful in portraying Hitler as an example of the ultra right.


I don't know oe's views on this.

But I can comfirm that such was widely seen here (= in Europe, especially in German speaking countries and by those who "were on the Nazi's lists) as being so. Since the mid1930's, I suppose.

And in the past WWII times is thought to be a fact.

This certainly might be wrong and your (and that of other Americans and others) opinion might be correct.

What I think, however, that such is often due to
a) a not working knowledge of the German language,
b) not considering the many primary sources (but such might be related to point a))
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 01:24 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

The right can always find words to twist facts around, until all evil is spelled liberal. The left, of course, can do the same, only it is spelled conservative. True liberals and conservatives can find ways to make things work. Fanatics don't try.

Again, a cute statement, but no evidence. By definition, leftists believe in big government, the collective vs individual rights and responsibilities, so for you to claim the function of how this works applies to both sides, sorry, I do not agree. Fanatics spring from people that believe they somehow can fix the injustices of the world via big government and forced collectivism. It requires force to do it, Edgar. Maybe you have missed out on all the discussion leading up to this point, so I would recommend you read the entire thread, then come back here and have something substantive to say.

There are fanatics that may harbor ideas that are conservative in nature, such as the guy that shot the abortion doctor, but he acted alone, and mainly he is just somebody with a mental problem.
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 03:10 pm
In reply to the opening post, by what standard do you measure them to be the most ruthless?

Also, please note that every individual in your list has been active in the 20th century. If you then use that group to extrapolate broad, generalizing theories about, it wouldn't be amiss if you test it against other individuals from before that time. Plenty should fit the bill.
- Vlad Tepes
- Atilla.
- Karel V/Phillips II of Spain.
- Dzjengis Kahn and Koeblai Kahn.
- Nero

Very fundamental changes took place between the period of say 1750 and 1900, on technological, medical and philosophical fields.
- Technology made it easier to
a) Spread ideas around faster.
b) Quickly and easily transport people and equipment around the country/world
c) Wage war/kill people (planes, bombs, gas, submachine guns, tanks)
d) Create equipment faster and in greater numbers (mass production)

- Medically, better health care and disease control allowed for larger populations, which in turn made it possible to create higher body counts.

- Philosophically (and politically as well)
- new theories on politics (nationalism, communism)
- The death of God (Nietzsche)

I probably missed dozens of other equally vital developments that you failed to consider in forming your theories, but these will do for now.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 03:12 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

The right can always find words to twist facts around, until all evil is spelled liberal. The left, of course, can do the same, only it is spelled conservative. True liberals and conservatives can find ways to make things work. Fanatics don't try.

Again, a cute statement, but no evidence. By definition, leftists believe in big government, the collective vs individual rights and responsibilities, so for you to claim the function of how this works applies to both sides, sorry, I do not agree. Fanatics spring from people that believe they somehow can fix the injustices of the world via big government and forced collectivism. It requires force to do it, Edgar. Maybe you have missed out on all the discussion leading up to this point, so I would recommend you read the entire thread, then come back here and have something substantive to say.

There are fanatics that may harbor ideas that are conservative in nature, such as the guy that shot the abortion doctor, but he acted alone, and mainly he is just somebody with a mental problem.


As I said, you can find evidence endlessly for your predjudices and the opposition can do the same. Just dogs chasing tails.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 04:21 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

As I said, you can find evidence endlessly for your predjudices and the opposition can do the same. Just dogs chasing tails.

To rephrase what you said in a more accurate manner, "you can find evidence to support a premise or a belief, and the opposition can hopefully provide counter evidence to support their belief or premise." And through careful analysis and consideration, a premise or belief can be supported as the correct one, vs another one. At least I believe that, perhaps you do not?

I have provided evidence, based upon the realities of Hitler's politics, and you are welcome to provide counter evidence, that is if you are interested in determining what is accurate. Edgar, you seem to imply that an issue has more than one correct answer, and I disagree. I think the reality of the issue says that one belief system is more correct than the other. It is silly to say that there is no correct answer. If that is what you believe, you must live a confused life? Sure, there are gray areas and overlaps, but surely you must believe in something more than another, for what I hope would be reasons that you can provide.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 04:30 pm
@najmelliw,
najmelliw wrote:

In reply to the opening post, by what standard do you measure them to be the most ruthless?

As a matter of record, I did not attempt to rate them against each other, I simply chose a handful of guys that are fairly well known as pretty bad actors or ruthless dictators, and I freely admit that particular ones are surely worse than others.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 05:29 pm
@okie,
People like you on a mission to blame all that is bad on liberals (or whatever group) don't really want facts. You slide around facts and good arguments to renew the attack endlessly. Which is why I don't consider your style of debate worthy of engagement. I occasionally drop into these threads to see if anything is going on, but rarely see cause to remain .
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 05:42 pm
I refer serious students of this topic to Wilhelm Reich's The Mass Psychology of Fascism. Or Erich Fromm's The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/07/2022 at 06:33:40