What is a Nazi?

[El_Machinae]

That 'and' is doing a lot of lifting in that sentence.

Economically, I think they're dependent on taking by force to maintain the books, though. Obviously, it's not been tested in the "it's not the actual implementation" sense

 

[stinkubus]

Empires are dependent upon conquest to secure resources and open up new markets. That is true regardless of their internal politics.

Human relations and politics do not allow us to conduct controlled experiments so the idea that anything can ever be empirically tested is balderdash.

 

[bernie14]

Sadly, a lot of people are really into horseshoes.

Except
a) commies actually don't dogwhistle. They're incredibly clear about their agenda in general. Ask a commie of their political position, vast majority are happy to inform you. The idea that they're being secretive and sneaky isn't reflected in the real world and only really propagated by far right conspiracies
b) thinking organization is reserved for communists is ridiculous and I'm clueless as to what in the world you're watching/reading to gain this - or the above - impression

ok, but nazis waving swastikas are also very clear about their agenda. the whole argument as to "what is a nazi" seems to revolve on the "what do I/you consider *** adjacent", which seems (to me) argued in the context of conflict theory. I am not a fan of conflict theory.

How much do people put "conquest and looting", literal Lebensraum, into being an essential aspect of being a 'True Nazi'?
There's a broad difference between "protecting what I deem to be mine" and "taking what I deem should be mine".

If a political cohort has all the bells-and-whistles of being Nazis (without the self-identification), but has no actual plans for violent expansion, would we call them 'Nazis'? I'm trying to find what people's Platonic Conception is.

not so much the word "organize" but the sentiment......such as the phrase....."taking what I deem should be mine".... could also be a marx quote.

There is no platonic conception. You're talking to people who would deny those marching in the streets wearing clothing emblazoned with swastikas were Nazis. This entire thread is a ridiculous exercise in pedantry. No standard you set will ever satisfy the true believers because they're just trolling you.

ridiculous....see response to @Angst above.

Dude, I couldn't use the word 'organize' usefully in a casual discussion.

similar to someone flashing an OK sign and being called a nazi.

I think part of what makes Nazism now include people that have no wish for expansion is that the movement evolved and branched since Germany, where organized and self-identifying Nazis sometimes do not wish for expansion. That said, they do wish for a great Other, they do wish for institutionalized violence, and they do wish for the kind of behavior OP described when rooting out undesirables. Nazi organization is not reserved for the German model. Rule of thumb - if it's a fascist talking about "international jewry" and being more race based, it's Nazism. Weird reference, but you seen Starship Troopers? That's a movie about fascism, not Nazism.

But really, to OP's credit, it can be seen as unnecessary muddle. Whether it's a form of fascism or an inherently Nazi movement, it maybe doesn't really matter that much. Both are heinous.

again, completely within the context of conflict theory, hook, line and sinker.

They were. They had run into the trap of the "rat catchers".
A lot of them were just too blind or later too brainswashed to understand it.

Just like Norther Koreans are victims of the totalitarian regime there.
A lot of them are simply not in a position to understand or change the things.

Just like many islamic extremists are vicitms of the islamic propaganda they feel for.
Many of them are simply not educated or informed enough to doubt what they hear.

So is everybody living under an oppressive totalitarian or extremist regime now automaically evil?
Just because they were stupid enough to let that regime come to power?
Or just because they start believing the propaganda they hear all day from everybody they know?

It is similar to people living in a sect are being vicitms.
They at some point got brainwashed enough to not be able anymore to doubt what they hear.

----

It is not like the Germans suddenly became evil monsters or were already evil before voting.
They fell for propaganda and lies and did very stupid things and yes, many - but not all - actually fell for that propaganda.

But just saying "All Germans" were evil just because they voted or later supported or maybe simply had to endure an evil regime is non-sense either.
Many of them in fact did not really know what happened to the Jews or simply did not want to believe the rumours they heard about the attrocities.

The Germans were vicitms of their own regime as well and got brainwashed by propaganda.
I challenge anybody to live in such a regime and at one point not get brainwashed himself.

----

Being a victim is possible even if you believe in what you do.
Humans are simply very easy to be lied to or brainwashed - especially if uneducated and poor.

it's like a a societal stockholm syndrome.

 

[El_Machinae]

not so much the word "organize" but the sentiment......such as the phrase....."taking what I deem should be mine".... could also be a marx quote.

Okay, but do you see it as an essential part of being a Nazi?

 

[bernie14]

Okay, but do you see it as an essential part of being a Nazi?

yes

 

[Angst]

ok, but nazis waving swastikas are also very clear about their agenda. the whole argument as to "what is a nazi" seems to revolve on the "what do I/you consider *** adjacent", which seems (to me) argued in the context of conflict theory. I am not a fan of conflict theory.

[...]

again, completely within the context of conflict theory, hook, line and sinker.

???

I had to google conflict theory, so ok, it's (originally always, now sometimes, Marxist) dialectics about the idea that society revolves around competition over limited resources. OK? Blame me being Danish for not recognizing the English equivalent. We have the word, but we usually just call it materialist dialectics in the literature I'm reading in Danish or English. Conflict theory was probably the name for it in high school. I don't remember. And I'm not a sociologist. So. Yea.

But now we're here, so anyways, I'm trying to parse this, let's take it in... "a list of half-ish points", let's say. If lack of clarity is a problem, I'll just point out it's hard not being messy here with the absolute lack of connection to anything in the claim. Let's try -

- conflict theory is a specific interpretation of sociology, economics and history
- understanding that things culturally, politically or materially change historically does not mean you have to be a ... conflict theorist
- like, most of us agree that Ancient Egypt doesn't exist anymore and the remnants of the faith have changed in nature..? Are we all conflict theorists? Like... what are you talking about???
- the fact that dogwhistles exist and/or can be demonstrated has no inherent connection to being a proprietor of conflict theory
- the fact that dogwhistling today is very much a right wing phenomenon has no inherent connection to being a proprietor of conflict theory
- like, political studies or media studies are not conflict theory
- in none of the two posts you quoted did I make an explanation of why it changed, I just noted it did
- the fact that fascists have structurally ingrained a great Other is not conflict theory. (And on that note - do you understand what conflict theory is?) Othering is an anthropologically described phenomenon within cultural studies and sociology, it's not materialist history... at all
(- maybe you think conflict theory means something else than it does, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here)
- honestly, it looks like you fell across the theory at some point and is appropriating it onto my points because you assume I am vaguely left-leaning
- the left is not Marx and materialist history these days y'know. It's still there, but it's very easy to see which parts aren't when you're willing to acquaint yourself with the peopple and the material
- which you haven't, seeing you believe "organization" is a dogwhistle

Left-wing people today are very clear if not loud about their beliefs. That's part of why the popular consciousness finds there is a stereotypical abrasiveness to them. This disposition can be explained in several ways that have nothing to do with materialist history. I don't have to be on some fence between evolutionary biology and creationism to claim a banana is yellow. And even then, here, it's like me saying a banana is yellow and you tell me I'm too much of a Reaganomist.

Waving flags happens among Nazis, but they're not at all representative of modern fascist movements, which have adapted to a changing media landscape and popular relationships to Nazism for obvious reasons. And again, saying Ancient Egypt doesn't exist anymore doesn't make me a proponent for conflict theory, it just means I have eyes.

 

[amadeus]

There is only one possible direction for Hitler's reputation to move in. The revisionists will revise accordingly. Napoleon was once Anti-christ, he's doing much better now.

I don’t think there’s much room for revision. Napoleon’s rule was more mixed.

 

[Kyriakos]

There is only one possible direction for Hitler's reputation to move in. The revisionists will revise accordingly. Napoleon was once Anti-christ, he's doing much better now.

I don't think that Napoleon (the great) was ever unpopular in France. Going by stuff I read in diaries of people who lived in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Napoleon III would be another story.

As for Hitler, he will probably become less relevant if/when there's a new world war.

 

[El_Machinae]

yes

So, if someone's political movement contains all the other aspects of being Nazi (other than self-identification as one, which changes all the calculations), but doesn't include conquest outside of the borders, they're not Nazis?

 

[bernie14]

Nazi islolationists? Seems counterintuitive

EDIT. That seems more in line with segregationists or perhaps the Confederate "nazis" that @Lexicus referred to earler

 

[bernie14]

???

I had to google conflict theory, so ok, it's (originally always, now sometimes, Marxist) dialectics about the idea that society revolves around competition over limited resources. OK?

yes...

Blame me being Danish for not we usually just call it materialist dialectics in the literature I'm reading in Danish or English. Conflict theory was probably the name for it in high school. I don't remember. And I'm not a sociologist. So. Yea.

so, synonyms? yes? no?

now we're here, so anyways, I'm trying to parse this, let's take it in... "a list of half-ish points", let's say. If lack of clarity is a problem, I'll just point out it's hard not being messy here with the absolute lack of connection to anything in the claim. Let's try -

- conflict theory is a specific interpretation of sociology, economics and history
- understanding that things culturally, politically or materially change historically does not mean you have to be a ... conflict theorist

.....conflict theory,.... , it's dialectics..... we usually just call it materialist dialectics.....Conflict theory was probably the name for it in high school. I don't remember. so are you saying there's no relation or you can accept one without the other?

-like, most of us agree that Ancient Egypt doesn't exist anymore and the remnants of the faith have changed in nature..? Are we all conflict theorists? Like... what are you talking about???

why did it change? conflict maybe?

-the fact that dogwhistles exist and/or can be demonstrated has no inherent connection to being a proprietor of conflict theory
- the fact that dogwhistling today is very much a right wing phenomenon has no inherent connection to being a proprietor of conflict theory

Sure it does, in fact the mere using of the word is explicitly dehumanizing.

- like, political studies or media studies are not conflict theory
- in none of the two posts you quoted did I make an explanation of why it changed, I just noted it did

yep. Stuff just happens naturally, you know, it's the negation of the negation....

- the fact that fascists have structurally ingrained a great Other is not conflict theory. (And on that note - do you understand what conflict theory is?) Othering is an anthropologically described phenomenon within cultural studies and sociology, it's not materialist history... at all
(- maybe you think conflict theory means something else than it does, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here)

disagree. It's conflict theory in it's purest sense, fascism vs communism as fantasized by the extremists and the implementation of the *adjacent qualifier.

- honestly, it looks like you fell across the theory at some point and is appropriating it onto my points because you assume I am vaguely left-leaning

Is that a correct assumption?

- the left is not Marx and materialist history these days y'know. It's still there, but it's very easy to see which parts aren't when you're willing to acquaint yourself with the peopple and the material
- which you haven't, seeing you believe "organization" is a dogwhistle

actually, it was @El_Machinae that made that assumption, i just played along...

Left-wing people today are very clear if not loud about their beliefs. That's part of why the popular consciousness finds there is a stereotypical abrasiveness to them. This disposition can be explained in several ways that have nothing to do with materialist history. I don't have to be on some fence between evolutionary biology and creationism to claim a banana is yellow. And even then, here, it's like me saying a banana is yellow and you tell me I'm too much of a Reaganomist.

i don't care if you are loud and proud but your defensive attempt to distance dialectic materialism from conflict theory, especially in the context of Marxism is completely nonsensical.

Waving flags happens among Nazis, but they're not at all representative of modern fascist movements, which have adapted to a changing media landscape and popular relationships to Nazism for obvious reasons. And again, saying Ancient Egypt doesn't exist anymore doesn't make me a proponent for conflict theory, it just means I have eyes.

Ok, like really ok, not the dogwhistle

 

[bernie14]

You're misunderstanding the term 'dogwhistle' if that's what you think.

Perhaps, i define it as a message that is understood/communicated between a small group and then understood by others when it becomes more obvious/common. The qualifier that it pertains to "nefariousness" and it's relation to "packs of viscous dogs" is either incidental or dehumanizing.

 

[Angst]

yes...
so, synonyms? yes? no?

.....conflict theory,.... , it's dialectics..... we usually just call it materialist dialectics.....Conflict theory was probably the name for it in high school. I don't remember. so are you saying there's no relation or you can accept one without the other?
why did it change? conflict maybe?

I have no idea what you're saying here. Maybe it's because:

disagree. It's conflict theory in it's purest sense, fascism vs communism as fantasized by the extremists and the implementation of the *adjacent qualifier.

... This is not conflict theory. xD So giving you the benefit of the doubt was the wrong call. You can't read.

 

[bernie14]

@El_Machinae. did you delete your post?

 

[bernie14]

I have no idea what you're saying here. Maybe it's because:



... This is not conflict theory. xD So giving you the benefit of the doubt was the wrong call. You can't read.

I have no idea what you're saying here. Maybe it's because:



... This is not conflict theory. xD So giving you the benefit of the doubt was the wrong call. You can't read.

Those are not difficult questions to answer if you learned it in high school

EDIT well, i do have a very mild dyslexia but it doesn't rise to the level of dissonance, ie not recognizing the relationship between dialectic materialism and conflict theory in marxist theory

 

[El_Machinae]

@El_Machinae. did you delete your post?

I did. Sorry. Realized I didn't care to object

 

[Angst]

Those are not difficult questions to answer if you learned it in high school

But the question makes no sense? I point out it's basically a synonym, you say I don't realize a synonym as a gotcha (???), and then you leap to marxists vs nazis is conflict theory (???) therefore embrace glorious horseshoe. It's nonsense. I at least expected you to be able to read, or not throw out snappy terminologies as a gotcha when you have literally no clue as to the theory you're referencing.

 

[bernie14]

But the question makes no sense? I point out it's basically a synonym, you say I don't realize a synonym as a gotcha (???), and then you leap to marxists vs nazis is conflict theory (???) therefore embrace glorious horseshoe. It's nonsense. I at least expected you to be able to read, or not throw out snappy terminologies as a gotcha when you have literally no clue as to the theory you're referencing.

Meh, without resorting to childish accusations, I'll just assume we are not communicating well

 

[Angst]

Meh, without resorting to childish accusations, I'll just assume we are not communicating well

Maybe you should just learn what conflict theory is before talking about it.

EDIT: Just saw your edit about mild dyslexia - it actually explains your misreading a lot, but I'm sorry to have piled up on that. It's not easy to work with when you have it.

 

[Ajidica]

There is only one possible direction for Hitler's reputation to move in. The revisionists will revise accordingly. Napoleon was once Anti-christ, he's doing much better now.

Are you saying we shouldn't regard the Corsican Anti-Christ butchering his way across Europe to sate his desire to glory with horror and revulsion?