Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Compared to the Falangists, the anarchists were surprisingly mild in the way civilian populations were treated.

    I mean, I could draw attention to the fact that the Catholic supported Falangists resorted to torture, gang rape and murder of those suspected of having anarchist or socialist sympathies. The excesses of the Falangists overshadowed other reprisals by a factor of ten or more in some cases.

    More to the point, you seem to be missing the fact that this was a war, and during a war some groups commit atrocities. Provided that these atrocities aren't systematic (and evidence demonstrates that they weren't) then it is the fault of the individuals concerned rather than the movement of a whole.

    I mean, does the fact that the allies bombed Dresden during the Second World War make liberal democracy invalid? Your argument is ludicrous in the extreme.
    Since when did I say that it was an argument against anarchism? There are plenty of better arguments against anarchism.

    What I was saying is that the main reason that the Nationalists got support was of the reaction to the anti-clericalism of the Second Spanish Republic and to the anti-clerical violence of the Republican loyalist mobs.

    Who was a Catholic to choose? The Nationalists who were talking about a "crusade" or the Republicans (except the Basques) who hated them and their Church?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mute50)
    Surely if they voted for a nazi that means that they weren't socialist??
    :confused:
    NO because the nazis practiced many socialist policies - a command-economy, total employment. I would call them one of the most socialist governments in history. But this is semantics. They were certainly quite close to certain, but not all, socialist movements.

    Socialism, even in the 19th century, has always been an extremely diverse, vague and ambiguous grouping.

    For example, 19th century socialists such as wagner and bakunin were as hard-core in their anti-semitism as any nazi.

    Again, marx was only one among thousands of socialist theorists. The nazis were not marxist at all, but they had a lot more in common with other strands of socialism.

    There are distinctions within socialism, for example, between internationalist/nationalist movements, or between those which make a futurist rejection of the past and those which idealise the past/folk culture. Unlike nazism, marxism is internationalist and also doesn't hark back to some golden folk age (marxism accepts a hobbesian view of the state of nature, where happiness is only possible after man has defeated nature). But other socialist groups, for example, the artists in the Deutscher Werkbund, were both nationalist and recidivistic. A similar example might be the kibbutz movement in israel
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    It's alright for the likes of Gramsci, sitting in his prison cell, and E.P. Thompson, with his cushy education, to write about ideas, but this is nothing to do with pragmatism. If any of their ideas were enforced, as has been proven, they'd subside when power is in sight for their political leaders, when competition is possible among a populace, and when there are external states threatening attack.



    To put this down to a load of external influences is quite fallacious. It even oversteps Namier. Although a politician may still be able to sympathise with their youth, if they still harboured such opinions, then (a) they wouldn't join a moderate party in the first place, and (b) their ideals would be shown through action. People like Brown, both Hitchens', Mandelson, Milliband etc. are hardly Marxists. The point is that when these people grow up, they realise that the world is more than just a land of candyfloss with people willing to get along. It involves competition, selfishness, expediency, envy and avarice. Their ideal worlds would simply be broken by individual wants, and it's just something they need to realise.
    Maybe I misunderstood you, but it is those very issues that are the root of leftist 'radicalism', so claiming that anyone on the traditional 'left' is unaware of those issues is, as you put it, 'quite fallacious'.

    Nearly all modern politicians have their careers at heart; Mandelson, Cameron, BoJo, Milliband, Harmon, etc., I could name a hefty majority of them. They see that it is easier to go along with the system, and benefit oneself, than trying to rebel against the system as a lone voice, and get kicked out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Since when did I say that it was an argument against anarchism? There are plenty of better arguments against anarchism.

    What I was saying is that the main reason that the Nationalists got support was of the reaction to the anti-clericalism of the Second Spanish Republic and to the anti-clerical violence of the Republican loyalist mobs.

    Who was a Catholic to choose? The Nationalists who were talking about a "crusade" or the Republicans (except the Basques) who hated them and their Church?
    Yeah, the main reason that the Catholics supported the Nationalists was blatantly anti-clericalism, it had absolutely nothing to do with the fascists emphasis on traditional morality and the family, their emphasis on hierarchy and order, and the shared contempt for democracy held by both the Catholic Church and the Falangists.

    It's nice historical fantasy Don, but it isn't true, Catholics have supported various forms of fascism since it's beginnings.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kneechuh)
    Maybe I misunderstood you, but it is those very issues that are the root of leftist 'radicalism', so claiming that anyone on the traditional 'left' is unaware of those issues is, as you put it, 'quite fallacious'.
    The traditional left are obsessed with the ultimate imposition of some unachievable egalitarian utopia. Whether or not leftist radicalism is propelled by the instinct of individuals, this simply supports my point. Radical leftists destroy their own ideals by conforming to that which would subvert it. I'm not saying they're 'unaware' as much as I'm saying they're ignorant of it.

    (Original post by Kneechuh)
    Nearly all modern politicians have their careers at heart; Mandelson, Cameron, BoJo, Milliband, Harmon, etc., I could name a hefty majority of them. They see that it is easier to go along with the system, and benefit oneself, than trying to rebel against the system as a lone voice, and get kicked out.
    Even if it is best to go along with the system (although I'd highly dispute this is the entirety of it), don't you see that this is just my point with regards to the practicalities of imposing such an ideal? When there's room for personal gain, certain ideals will be thrown out. It is impossible for a universal (it would need to be universal as we have seen with the destruction of minor examples/snippets) Marxist state to come into force. And even if it did it would find a way of destroying itself internally. Or, in order to sustain egalitarianism, violence or brainwashing would be required - which would make such a state completely undesirable (and, paradoxiclaly, non-egalitarian) anyway. Marxism is an implicitly violent ideal. The ultimate point is that even if there was just one object and two humans left in the world there would be competition among them to capitalise on the product. "Sharing" is not the human way.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Yeah, the main reason that the Catholics supported the Nationalists was blatantly anti-clericalism, it had absolutely nothing to do with the fascists emphasis on traditional morality and the family, their emphasis on hierarchy and order, and the shared contempt for democracy held by both the Catholic Church and the Falangists.
    These were also factors but the nationalist numbers swelled after news of the attacks emerged and one of the main reasons of the "crusade" in the first place was the anti-catholic laws of the Republican government.

    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    It's nice historical fantasy Don, but it isn't true, Catholics have supported various forms of fascism since it's beginnings.
    This is the biggest load of nonsense ever. I already showed you Mit brennender Sorge which was anti-Nazism and Non Abbiamo Bisogno which was anti-fascist. So clearly the Catholic church was anti-fascist (this is coming from a Protestant so I actually have more of a incentive to agree with you but for me the truth is too important).

    Your bigotry is quite obvious. Despite all evidence you try and claim that the Vatican are pro-fascist. What a disgrace.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    This is the biggest load of nonsense ever. I already showed you Mit brennender Sorge which was anti-Nazism and Non Abbiamo Bisogno which was anti-fascist. So clearly the Catholic church was anti-fascist (this is coming from a Protestant so I actually have more of a incentive to agree with you but for me the truth is too important).

    Your bigotry is quite obvious. Despite all evidence you try and claim that the Vatican are pro-fascist. What a disgrace.
    And I've already told you the encyclical meant jack all considering the fact that the Vatican did very little to condemn the Nazi regime (keeping silent about the Holocaust). The encyclical condemned some racism, it did not condemn fascism or Nazism. If anything, it was a condemnation of certain elements of Nazism combined with a hope for reconciliation. Anti-semitism was fairly prevalent amongst officials at the Vatican at the time, that's fairly indisputable, and would go a long way towards explaining why they didn't do more to act.

    Support from the Vatican for Mussolini's regime, the support that the Falangists got from local clergy not to mention bishops in Spain, the number of high profile Catholics in the Franco government and the Concordat and the refusal to actively condemn the Nazi regime, even during the Holocaust, all go towards confirming tacit acceptance of fascism by the Catholic Church.

    I'm not a bigot, I'm intellectually honest. A conservative institution based upon hierarchy and traditional values threw it's weight behind fascist regimes because they most closely reflected its values. How blind do you have to be to miss that?

    I'm going to bed, continue raving at shadows in my absence.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4758sBZLC5k

    The Nazis were leftists. All socialism/leftism must be opposed!
    The socialism of the Nazis, such as it was, was strongly mixed up with and distorted by their ultra-nationalism, militarism, imperialism and racism. Once you mix socialism up with other ideologies like these, ideologies which are actually in high conflict with the central ethos of socialism, you pretty much destroy the value of that socialism (same for the BNP as it happens, an organisation that refer to themselves as 'hard right' interestingly enough). It's thus both a historical and intellectual error to simplistically talk of the Nazis as 'socialists'.

    Presumably you can find a video on youtube to defend pretty much any kind of whacky position but if you're heading for university I recommend you try actual history books by peer-reviewed scholars.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by mute50)
    The 'socialism' within the nazis was more or less an attempt a to elicit support from workers(the urban workers. During the rise of the nazis it was the leftist groups who were the most vocal of the political groups, and it was the socialist who often met their death at the hands of the nazis.
    Anyway isn't national socialism an oxymoron
    Very good points. To large extent the Nazi 'socialism' was an attempt to steal the clothing of a movement that had wide popularity in Europe, including Germany, between the wars. Nazi claims to be 'socialist' (a movement which centally seeks, ultimately, to give economic, political and social power to the people) isn't the same as being socialist.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    And I've already told you the encyclical meant jack all considering the fact that the Vatican did very little to condemn the Nazi regime (keeping silent about the Holocaust). The encyclical condemned some racism, it did not condemn fascism or Nazism. If anything, it was a condemnation of certain elements of Nazism combined with a hope for reconciliation. Anti-semitism was fairly prevalent amongst officials at the Vatican at the time, that's fairly indisputable, and would go a long way towards explaining why they didn't do more to act.
    No, it condemned the totalitarianism of the Nazis quite explicitly. And no one knew that the holocaust was happening and judging by their anti-rascist position they would have condemned it.

    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Support from the Vatican for Mussolini's regime, the support that the Falangists got from local clergy not to mention bishops in Spain, the number of high profile Catholics in the Franco government and the Concordat and the refusal to actively condemn the Nazi regime, even during the Holocaust, all go towards confirming tacit acceptance of fascism by the Catholic Church.
    Wrong. The second encyclical I showed you was a savaging of Mussolini's regime and was highly critical. So you are wrong about that.

    And the official position of the Vatican over the Spanish civil war issue was one of neutrality. Catholics were heavily involved in the nationalist government of Franco but that was mainly in reaction to the anti-clericalism of the radical leftist republicans and Franco's government could not be described as fascist but authoritarian latin conservative.

    So you are wrong, the Vatican has always condemned fascism.

    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    I'm not a bigot, I'm intellectually honest. A conservative institution based upon hierarchy and traditional values threw it's weight behind fascist regimes because they most closely reflected its values. How blind do you have to be to miss that?
    It is correct that fascism was a rightist movement but Nazism is alot harder to pin down due to it's radical leftist influences.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Littlepod)
    The Nazis had certain socialist values and a lot of their policies did seem to be socialist. However, the Nazis were German nationalists and fascists. They were all for "putting Germany first" as it were.

    Socialism should be encouraged rather than opposed. I personally don't see anything wrong with social egalitarianism, collective decision making with all the people of a country and other socialist values. Tis a positive thing and socialism would most definitely be far better than capitalism.
    what is socilaism where people are seperated into thier own nationalities?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    First it starts with an unfair representation of what [the Jewish] Karl Marx wrote, the Holocaust was most likely a metaphor for a sacrificial offering - unless, of course, you can find anywhere in his literature where he advocated the literal mass extermination of an ethnicity or a literal extermination of class. It's anachronistic to lay the same 21st century weight on the term 'Holocaust' - its highly misleading given its historical context. His whole work points towards a natural historical progression, rather than one enforced through murder. This doesn't mean that I agree with Marx, but it does relieve him of that charge and mounts an accusation against that youtube clip. Perhaps worse still: the quote is a complete fabrication! It doesn't even exist:

    "Now I share neither in the opinions of Ricardo, who regards ‘Net-Revenue’ as the Moloch to whom entire populations must be sacrificed, without even so much as complaint, nor in the opinion of Sismondi, who, in his hypochondriacal philanthropy, would forcibly retain the superannuated methods of agriculture and proscribe science from industry, as Plato expelled poets from his Republic. Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way. But can there be anything more puerile, more short-sighted, than the views of those Economists who believe in all earnest that this woeful transitory state means nothing but adapting society to the acquisitive propensities of capitalists, both landlords and money-lords? In Great Britain the working of that process is most transparent. The application of modern science to production clears the land of its inhabitants, but it concentrates people in manufacturing towns."

    Of course the Nazis can be described as left-wing or socialist in many respects. Likewise they upholded previous traditionalist Conservative values and hierarchies. It's wholly misleading and intellectually lazy to categorise parties into one political label and then dismiss the political label in its entirety. The Nazis hated the communists and various socialist parties - they fought them on the streets (look up Rosa Luxembourg if on the small chance you've never studied the period). The definition of 'socialist' changes - this is purely a linguistical side to the debate. The Nazis were many things (fascist and patriotic, for instance), self-described as socialist (insofar as they favoured a collective approach) but they didn't advocate Marxism (or communism, for that matter), nor did they offer the socialism offered by, for example, the Spanish anarchists in Barcelona or the peace-loving hippies of modern times. 'Socialist' parties were involved in a rather sizeable 'movement' at the time anyway - it was much more mainstream to label a party using that term - the Ebert's Weimar Republic in the interwar period was apparently 'socialist'.

    And, furthermore, propaganda pictures were always very limited in what they depicted. They always appealed to the youth (explaining why both the Soviets and Nazis depicted young, handsome, strong and awe-inspiring workers); it shouldn't be surprising that all propaganda around this time showed similar themes - which explains the frequent parallels between their propaganda posters. Considering how openly anti-Marxist their propaganda was, I simply can't fall for your incredibly biased historical revisionism, Don.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Of course the Nazis can be described as left-wing or socialist in many respects. Likewise they upholded previous traditionalist Conservative values.
    Like what?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    Like?
    Emphasis on the family, anti-abortion (unless they were an inferior race), hierarchies, militarianism, anti-homosexual, sexism, racism... All of which were supported by a conservative middle-class in previous centuries. It is completely contrary to leftist feminist and gay rights groups.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    The Nazis were very keen on animal rights, a rather progressive outlook I guess, though I suppose this resulted mainly from the vegetarianism of the Fuhrer rather than anything ideological.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    anarchist totalitarian leftist radicals.
    Spectacular fail.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Nonsense, as any half decent historian or political theorist will tell you. Its right wing and libertarian nonsense to say "National Socialism" was socialist like communism, when in fact the socialism bit was a fig leaf to get German workers on side. The important bit was the 'National' bit, like other fascists they were right wing statist nationalists.

    Libertarians, especially in America like to pretend that the political spectrum is a simple line between big government lefties and small government right wingers. That is a libertarian's self serving definition of the right. Actually while there is a tendency for left leaning parties to want a bigger state, the size of the state isn't the issue of the left-right divide, its what you want to do with the state. A big government right winger, like Bush's neocons, want high spending on war and the military and on closing the border and the security services. In America where these ideas tend to come from, its ironic that many Democratic President's have spent far less public money than Republicans. It also plays on the fact that most Americans don't understand the differences between communism and socialism and take them as practically synonymous. A few right wing people argue that the NAZI's were socialists in Britain but I think they do so disingenuously and not because they really believe it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    Nonsense, as any half decent historian or political theorist will tell you. Its right wing and libertarian nonsense to say "National Socialism" was socialist like communism, when in fact the socialism bit was a fig leaf to get German workers on side. The important bit was the 'National' bit, like other fascists they were right wing statist nationalists.

    Libertarians, especially in America like to pretend that the political spectrum is a simple line between big government lefties and small government right wingers. That is a libertarian's self serving definition of the right. Actually while there is a tendency for left leaning parties to want a bigger state, the size of the state isn't the issue of the left-right divide, its what you want to do with the state. A big government right winger, like Bush's neocons, want high spending on war and the military and on closing the border and the security services. In America where these ideas tend to come from, its ironic that many Democratic President's have spent far less public money than Republicans. It also plays on the fact that most Americans don't understand the differences between communism and socialism and take them as practically synonymous. A few right wing people argue that the NAZI's were socialists in Britain but I think they do so disingenuously and not because they really believe it.
    This.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by pendragon)
    Nonsense, as any half decent historian or political theorist will tell you. Its right wing and libertarian nonsense to say "National Socialism" was socialist like communism, when in fact the socialism bit was a fig leaf to get German workers on side. The important bit was the 'National' bit, like other fascists they were right wing statist nationalists.

    Libertarians, especially in America like to pretend that the political spectrum is a simple line between big government lefties and small government right wingers. That is a libertarian's self serving definition of the right. Actually while there is a tendency for left leaning parties to want a bigger state, the size of the state isn't the issue of the left-right divide, its what you want to do with the state. A big government right winger, like Bush's neocons, want high spending on war and the military and on closing the border and the security services. In America where these ideas tend to come from, its ironic that many Democratic President's have spent far less public money than Republicans. It also plays on the fact that most Americans don't understand the differences between communism and socialism and take them as practically synonymous. A few right wing people argue that the NAZI's were socialists in Britain but I think they do so disingenuously and not because they really believe it.
    Great post!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The problem with his post is that he calls neocons "rightists" when their movement is full of trotskyites.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.