Reclaiming the Swastika

[Borachio]

Yeah. That's broadly true, I suppose.

But you see, the notion of race is a rather tenuous one to begin with. There's no reason to suppose that the racial ideology of National Socialism couldn't have incorporated Jews if it had wished to. Its anti-semitism was merely a feature of the political climate of the time which the Nazis incorporated into their ideology, I suggest.

Indeed, the Jews with their ideas of a chosen people, which seems, to say the least, elitist, might have slotted rather nicely into Nazism.

Howsomeever, I'm just mulling over some ideas here.

One of the fundamental notions of Nazism was the idea of the state. And the Jews, being apparently "stateless"*, may have had to be excluded simply on those grounds.

*I mean, they weren't. But that's the myth.

Can we classify Nazism as an ideology, even? It just seems such a mish-mash of woolly thinking. A lot of it based on a loon called Rosenberg, I believe.

 

[Formaldehyde]

This is a "screenshot" from a movie about a white supremacist who killed a black guy, later black people killed his younger brother in revenge.

That is correct.

I forgot the title of that movie. In the end the main character underwent a "transformation" and abandoned his racist views, becoming a normal person.

That is also correct. American History X was the name of the most excellent flick.

Anyway - this photo is not showing a real-life person, but an actor playing this character in mentioned movie.

That is also correct. So what is your point? That it doesn't portray the reality of skinheads and neo-Nazis continuing to use swastikas as a symbol in an accurate manner?

And in posts of Formaldehyde:

nazis

nazis everywhere

Nope. Only where they obviously existed and continue to do so.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

That was primitive democracy, not Communism.

Modern Bushmen tribes from South Africa also live in such democracy.

In one place on this forum I even wrote, that Bushmen are perhaps the "ideal society".

However, the price Bushmen pay for their "paradise", is lack of material culture, lack of property, lack of technology, etc.

If that's how they choose to live, they're obviously not perceiving any lacks.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Good points on German nationality

Where I found KaiserGuard had a point was that the Third Reich heavily damaged the idea of a continuous German national identity. I myself have already heard the term "Constitutional patriotism" used to describe West Germany, which seems very apt and also carries the notion that the Germany of now is the product of the guilt of the Germany of the Third Reich (with the constitution being often characterized as a direct answer to the Third Reich, which has a lot of merit) and consequently the Third Reich defines the Germany of now in a way which seems at odds with the idea of a continuous German identity going beyond the Third reich. Whatever the aspirations of the right, to me it appears mainstream ideology was dominated by the leftish approach, which is why I write leftish.

I also agree with you that the idea of a continuous German national identity transcending the Third Reich is growing more popular since unification. A reconciliation with Germans who have no shared experience since the end of war is a convincing point, though I would like to add that the reunification also seems to serve as a kind of symbol of an end of having to keep the head low on account of Nazi Germany. Opening up the opportunity to develop new pride in what is perceived to be German heritage and qualities defining the German nation.
But even today, the German flag only came out of the abyss in the football world cup of 2006 in Germany and remains to be a thing reserved for the purpose of national football pride and that is not about to change from what I can see. So the heritage of the Third Reich continues to weigh heavily, but I feel in a more subtle way which is not so much consciously realized as it was perhaps still the case before reunification but sort of became a way of life. German people are overall still outstandingly opposed to warfare (actually a bad example for what I just said as this seems to be very directly related to the experience of WWII) of any kind and frown on national pathos (a better example). On the other hand, German exceptionalism is on the rise, most recently fueled by the relative success of the German economy within the European Union and part of a larger trend of attributing several positive attributes to the German people. But it seems to be a very practical kind of exceptionalism (a good example), referring to practical abilities which make an economy strong or a bureaucracy efficient rather than broader and more intangible ideas as was the case before WWII.

 

[Crezth]

Also, Franco was not a Fascist, but a Reactionary.

Well, that certainly settles matters.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Or an interesting way to try to spin the facts, depending upon your own perspective:

Francoist Spain, also known as Fascist Spain, refers to the period of Spanish history between 1936 and 1975 when the authoritarian dictatorship of Francisco Franco took control of Spain from the government of the constitutionally liberal democratic Second Spanish Republic in the Spanish Civil War.

The Spanish Civil War started as a coup by the Spanish military on the peninsula (peninsulares) and the Moroccan rif territory (africanistas) on July 17, 1936.[1] The coup had the support of most factions sympathetic to the right-wing cause in Spain including the majority of Spain's Catholic clergy, the fascist-inclined Falange, and the Alfonsine and Carlist monarchists. The coup escalated into a civil war lasting for three years once Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany agreed to support Franco starting with airlifting of the africanistas onto the mainland.[2] Other supporters included Portugal under Antonio Salazar, while the presentation of the Civil War as a "crusade"[3] or renewed reconquista[4][5][6] attracted the sympathy of Catholics internationally and the participation of Irish Catholic volunteers. Although the government of Great Britain was more sympathetic[7][8][9] to the Francoists while the Popular Front government of France was anxious to support the Republic, both factions observed the non-intervention agreement of October 1936. The Second Spanish Republic was backed by the Stalinist Soviet Union from December 1936 and Mexico.[10]

The consistent points in Francoism included above all authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, conservatism, anti-communism, anti-anarchism, anti-semitism, anti-socialism and anti-liberalism, as well as a frontal rejection of Freemasonry; some authors also quote integralism.[25][26] Stanley Payne, a widely respected but highly controversial scholar of fascism and Spain, notes: "scarcely any of the serious historians and analysts of Franco consider the generalissimo to be a core fascist."[27][28] According to historian Walter Laqueur "during the civil war, Spanish fascists were forced to subordinate their activities to the nationalist cause. At the helm were military leaders such as General Francisco Franco, who were conservatives in all essential respects. When the civil war ended, Franco was so deeply entrenched that the Falange stood no chance; in this strongly authoritarian regime, there was no room for political opposition. The fascists became junior partners in the government and, as such, they had to accept responsibility for the regime's policy without being able to shape it substantially"[29] The United Nations Security Council in 1946 described the Franco government as 'Fascist' denying it recognition until it developed a more representative government.[30]

 

[Tahuti]

Can we classify Nazism as an ideology, even? It just seems such a mish-mash of woolly thinking. A lot of it based on a loon called Rosenberg, I believe.

Yes. But as I mentioned earlier, abstract concept are not important to an ideology, unless you can explain why they were adopted in the first place: You mentioned it yourself that it was part of political climate of the time, and this is essentially how all ideologies begin. Rosenberg was obsessed with concept nobody cared about and indeed, Hitler filtered a lot of his thought processes out to confirm to political realities.

 

[Domen]

That is also correct. So what is your point? That it doesn't portray the reality of skinheads and neo-Nazis continuing to use swastikas as a symbol in an accurate manner?

Modern neo-Nazis are so dumb that everyone can recognize them even without swastikas tattooed on foreheads.

They are not image builders, unlike the original Nazis, who tried to convince the world how nice they were:

http://naziswithcats.tumblr.com/

 

[Kyriakos]

Well the 'swastika' symbol is the least of what was ruined by the ww2 germans. Far worse was that the aftermath of ww2 included a switch in education that gradually led to most universities not focusing as much in their humanities departments on antiquity and instead beginning with the rennaisance (a bit ironic, given that the latter was called rebirth due to being a rebirth of the antiquity).

Besides, the germans killed mostly other europeans. It is a bit dumb to turn their crimes into a pan-european elitism consequence.

 

[Tahuti]

Well the 'swastika' symbol is the least of what was ruined by the ww2 germans. Far worse was that the aftermath of ww2 included a switch in education that gradually led to most universities not focusing as much in their humanities departments on antiquity and instead beginning with the rennaisance (a bit ironic, given that the latter was called rebirth due to being a rebirth of the antiquity).

Why? Do you have more info on this?

 

[Kyriakos]

I have empirical knowledge of it, from while i was preparing for my uni courses in England, and then my actual courses in the Uni of Essex, which did include some ancient Greek texts, but not only did the program begin with the Enlightenment and years around it, it also specifically mentioned the shift to this perspective in higher-education humanities and how they are presented in this level.

Which becomes even worse considering the aforementioned Uni supposedly is one of the highest ranked in Humanities (mostly Literature, and to a degree Philosophy).

http://www.topuniversities.com/universities/university-essex/undergrad

 

[Domen]

That is also correct. American History X was the name of the most excellent flick.

Thanks for reminding me of the title. It was a very good movie, by the way.

In our TV the title was "Więzień nienawiści" ("Prisoner of hatred"). I "love" how they "translate" titles of English movies...

Well, this is actually a kind of intelligent "translation". But sometimes one can get upset when one sees how they mess up translation.

 

[Leifmk]

Modern neo-Nazis are so dumb that everyone can recognize them even without swastikas tattooed on foreheads.

They are not image builders, unlike the original Nazis

The OG Nazis did have better fashion sense, I'll give them that much.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Modern neo-Nazis are so dumb that everyone can recognize them even without swastikas tattooed on foreheads.

They are not image builders, unlike the original Nazis, who tried to convince the world how nice they were:

http://naziswithcats.tumblr.com/

I doubt that Jews, Roma, and other supposed subhumans had any difficulty at all recognizing them for what they were, regardless of what sort of pets they might have had.

 

[Borachio]

Cats are notorious Nazis.

With genocidal tendencies towards all sorts of small wildlife.

They do, though, have more sense than to get swastika tattoos.

 

[strijder20]

So you still believe that Communism is something good?

I said that?

Communism is Utopia - it cannot work properly in practice, and it was proven by history.

It was?

The ideal version of Communism is perhaps not so bad - but such thing never existed and cannot exist.

Agreed. Now show me one country which is completely following Smith's capitalism.

Show me one single Communist country in history, which was not a dictatorship and where human rights and law were respected. JUST ONE.

Hunter-gatherers.
Since when do democratic semblancies exclude communism?

 

[Traitorfish]

Poland is Utopia - it cannot work properly in practice, and it was proven by history. The ideal version of Poland is perhaps not so bad - but such thing never existed and cannot exist. Show me one single Polish country in history, which was not basically a dump. JUST ONE.

Moderator Action: Please heed the warning from earlier in the thread and don't mention Poland.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Borachio]

Er...this one?

Moderator Action: See the warning earlier in the thread RE: mentioning Poland.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Domen]

Hunter-gatherers.

I asked: "show me one country".

Hunter-gatherers did not develop state organisation / did not establish any country.

All countries in history were founded by societies which knew agriculture and / or animal husbandry, not by hunter-gatherers.

Communism is Utopia - it cannot work properly in practice, and it was proven by history.

It was?

Yes because all Communist states in history eventually either:

A) collapsed or,
B) transformed into capitalist states (China) or,
C) got stuck into poverty and stagnation (North Korea, Cuba).

China is doing well, but it no longer has much to do with communism, since economy of China is quickly transforming towards capitalism.

=========================================

Traitorfish - you've just broken the "thread rule" established by moderator Camikaze on page 4. But what you wrote is wrong considering that the state you mentioned was doing quite fine for many hundreds years of its existence and still does today, despite some period when it wasn't independent.

Plus, you are actually repeating Nazi propaganda here (but the Nazis blamed also its Jews for "lack of ability to work properly" of this state).

Moderator Action: You recognise that I've warned not to talk about Poland, but then you reply to TF anyway. Please don't.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Domen]

Agreed. Now show me one country which is completely following Smith's capitalism.

Perhaps no country is completely following Smith's capitalism.

I don't say that communism is entirely wrong and everything in this system has to be rejected.

Some ideas can be "extracted" from communism and mixed with / incorporated into capitalist and democratic societies, to improve them.

"Pure capitalism" is also a bad idea - as the history of the 19th century so called "wild" capitalism proved.

"Pure communism" is maybe actually not such a bad idea, but is impossible to implement in developed societies (maybe you can try with hunter-gatherers!).

=============================================

As I wrote above, maybe you could try to peacefully develop "from scratch" people like South African Bushmen into a modern communist society.

But you cannot reverse history and transform already well-developed modern capitalist societies into communist ones. All attempts failed.

Even attempts to transform feudal societies immediately into communist ones - without the capitalist phase - largely failed.