Its a distinct form we have seen before, and is making a resurgence in Europe. The Nazi's and Fascists saw themselves as socialists, but also were nationalists.
This is true, however they were never Marxists, in fact 'Jewish Marxists' were Hitler's betes noirs from a very early stage. So if, when the Nazi's referred to themselves as 'socialists', what did they mean exactly? What 'socialist' tradition were they referencing? Well, none actually. Hitler described his ideology as 'socialist' in just two specific ways: firstly, he was 'socialist' because he was opposed to capitalism, the economic system that was seen to have caused the Great Depression, the cause of the suffering of the German people. Secondly, he flipped the traditional meaning of socialism, the one expanded and expounded by Marxists, to mean the opposite, so that traditional socialism's idea of the control of the state being taken by the people in Nazi ideology 'socialism' became the control of the people by the state.
It was an ideological sleight of hand to link the then popular idea of socialism - the idea that gave meaning to people's dissatisfaction with the failed capitalist system - with the opposite idea of a great, mighty and authoritarian state, working towards the magnificent destiny of the Aryan race - and there you have the evil union of National Socialism. Both words are used incorrectly: 'national' being used as an incorrect synonym for racial, and 'socialism' being twisted to its opposite significance.
Now, back to the present, and it's wrong to say that this is happening again in Europe in the sense that none of these parties that are having some electoral success in the Euro elections much resemble the Nazis in economic terms. None, apart from the Greek Golden Dawn perhaps, are opposed to capitalism and many, UKIP and the Dutch PVV for example, wish to see the state diminished in scale and scope, not to be the embodiment of the great will of the race, but to get out of the way of the great will of the individual. They are untrammelled capitalism's greatest fans and advocates. Big difference.
So, not only did Nazism have nothing to do with any kind of socialism in a Marxist, theoretical or traditional sense, the New Right in Europe has very little to do with Nazism in any other sense than that they use racial division and scapegoating to pursue their political goals.
Well, that's the standard misrepresentation of socialism, that it's all about massive statism. Some variants of it are, and have been, but many, if not most, socialists will argue that it is the opposite, that it is the control of the state by the people, and not vice versa, hence the preeminent importance of democratic structures and processes. Most of us I suspect believe that Stalin performed the same trick as Hitler did, by switching around the traditional and theoretical meaning of socialism in order to wield his malevolent dictatorial power.Lets keep things in context, anti semitism was hardly unique to hitler and exists long before and judging by what I read in the news recently is still very much a part of Europe. You may wish (understandably so) to divorce yourself or others from naziism but the fact remains, both forms advocate state control, and frankly differ more on minor issues regarding private ownership.
Really? As a result of resurgent anti-semitic pogroms, or in flight from civil unrest? In any case, I don't think Russia or Ukraine represent the mainstream of European reality. Isn't it interesting that Russia, while no longer 'communist' or 'socialist' in any conceivable way, a model for laissez-faire capitalism in fact, is behaving in a very similar manner to how they always behaved, both during the Soviet period, and before 1917?As far as happening again, where have you been? Jews are fleeing Russia and Ukraine.
Anti-semitism still exists in the world, as does homophobia, misogyny, Islamophobia, and not just in Europe. In fact I'd suggest northern and western Europe is just about the safest place someone from a social or ethnic minority could choose to live. The big worry is that those new right-wing parties scapegoat all minorities for the failings of the current capitalist, neo-liberal socio-political system. It would be surprising if Jewish people, long a target for those nationalist malcontents, wouldn't be noticing a rise in anti-semitism, along with anti-Gypsy, anti-Moslem, anti-immigrant agitation.Jews are threatened in western and northern europe.
I believe in fighting fascism on every level, whether it's Soviet-style or Nazi-style fascism. If no one stands up to it we'll only have ourselves to blame when our rights and freedoms are taken away. I have no knowledge of, nor interest in whether you and your US conservative cohorts try to make ridiculous analogies between liberalism and Nazism.Socialists and Fascists fight again in the streets. And this is the "enlightened" commie-light direction Americas marxists want us to steer towards. Compare the Democrat and liberal party platform OF TODAY, with the Nazi's. Let us know here what you find. I will wait for your reply.
Well, it's certainly doing a bang-up job of that at present, isn't it?:roll:Capitalism will continue in its steady role of delivering the poor from poverty
You are demonstrating the traits of several posters here. Despite a clearly defined and clarified definition, you decide to "feel" what the definition is. At that point we are no longer discussing the same topic. You think the question actually is "should americans believe they are superior". That was not the question. Lets not turn this into the oxygen network.
The Myth of American Exceptionalism | MIT VideoAmericans have long embraced a notion of superiority, claims Howard Zinn. Governor Winthrop of the Massachusetts Bay Colony described establishing "a city on a hill," to serve the world as a beacon of liberty. So far, so good. But driving this sense of destiny, says Zinn, was an assumption of divine agency "an association between what the government does and what God approves of." And too frequently, continues Zinn, Americans have invoked God to expand "into someone else's territory, occupying and dealing harshly with people who resist occupation." Zinn offers numerous examples of how the American government has used "divine ordination" and rationales of spreading civilization and freedom to justify its most dastardly actions: the extermination of Native Americans and takeover of their land; the annexation of Texas and war with Mexico; war against the Philippines; U.S. involvement in coups in Latin America; bloody efforts to expand U.S. influence in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. The battle against Communism, often bolstered by arguments of America's divine mission in the world, was merely a convenient excuse to maintain U.S. economic and military interests in key regions. Today, says Zinn, we have a president, who more than any before him, claims a special relationship with God. Zinn worries about an administration that deploys Christian zealotry to justify a war against terrorism, a war that in reality seems more about establishing a new beachhead in the oil-rich Middle East. He also sees great danger in Bush's doctrines of unilateralism and pre-emptive war, which mark a great leap away from international standards of morality.
I am reflecting nothing other than my own intellectual appraisal of the material presented. The Wikipedia article is quite logical and well-informed, but does not purport to, nor does it comprise, an universally accepted definition of the term. It attempts to explain what some people understand by the term, and further points out that others understand something quite different. This is useful in terms of discussing the ideology, but does not pretend to universally define it, and I believe the author has made a genuine attempt at impartial examination of the term.
However, there are other, equally qualified people who attempt to explain the term quite differently. Howard Zinn, decorated war hero, and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Boston University takes this view -
The Myth of American Exceptionalism | MIT Video
Much devolves about what you mean by American Exceptionalism. I have already stated that The United States, as a society, is unique to the same extent as every society exhibits that property. If that is the sum total of what you mean, then we are in total agreement. If you mean to imply some other quality or characteristic, by all means acquaint us with those aspects.
One of the difficulties we encounter in this discussion is your choice of terms. American Exceptionalism indicates an ideological stance. It is the belief that simply being American makes one exceptional (whether the term is being used in the sense of being inherently superior, or merely unique,) thus rendering the concept illogical, and open to criticism (deserved or otherwise) on the basis of elitism and jingoism.
Define the term as you understand it (irrespective of ambiguous examination in the Wikipedia) and we may be able to have an interesting and constructive discussion.
I am reflecting nothing other than my own intellectual appraisal of the material presented. The Wikipedia article is quite logical and well-informed, but does not purport to, nor does it comprise, an universally accepted definition of the term. It attempts to explain what some people understand by the term, and further points out that others understand something quite different. This is useful in terms of discussing the ideology, but does not pretend to universally define it, and I believe the author has made a genuine attempt at impartial examination of the term.
However, there are other, equally qualified people who attempt to explain the term quite differently. Howard Zinn, decorated war hero, and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Boston University takes this view -
The Myth of American Exceptionalism | MIT Video
Much devolves about what you mean by American Exceptionalism. I have already stated that The United States, as a society, is unique to the same extent as every society exhibits that property. If that is the sum total of what you mean, then we are in total agreement. If you mean to imply some other quality or characteristic, by all means acquaint us with those aspects.
One of the difficulties we encounter in this discussion is your choice of terms. American Exceptionalism indicates an ideological stance. It is the belief that simply being American makes one exceptional (whether the term is being used in the sense of being inherently superior, or merely unique,) thus rendering the concept illogical, and open to criticism (deserved or otherwise) on the basis of elitism and jingoism.
Define the term as you understand it (irrespective of ambiguous examination in the Wikipedia) and we may be able to have an interesting and constructive discussion.
You have made some points, and I will reply in depth tomorrow, its getting late in California.
Given your post preceding this - what would be the point of such an exercise?
The UK is clearly exceptional. In fact one reason given for the apparent discrepancy between England, Scotland, and Ireland is not so much that the Scots and Irish are inferior, but that the English historically have been the exception. There might be a point there.
That said, the UK has been in decline for some time but in many measures is still exceptional. Perhaps the US isn't far behind.
What your wordy post states could have been summed up as "I will choose my emotion-fueled version of the word and concept".
Why waste the electrons?
No i dont. Because those claims are nothing but conspiracy crap unfounded in non factual information that has been debunked over and over again.
Why so angry?
I'm not angry at all.
Sure you are not. You sound very angry. But either way, I feel sorry for you that you think that the US is just another run of the mill society and nation.
I am in awe of your poem. It was truly and entirely brilliant. I have only good things to say about it.
If I may -- how long did it take you to write that?
Sure you are not. You sound very angry. But either way, I feel sorry for you that you think that the US is just another run of the mill society and nation.
If Obama is lerking around on the DP, he probably can't vote because there's no > leaning left internationalist, no < option.