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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.