What is a Nazi?

[Birdjaguar]

Community "Organizers" in the US are often seen as left wing or... gasp... "commies". So that word can trigger rightists to assume stuff. To conservatives, "organizing" means labor unions, socialism, strikes, rights for people of color etc.

 

[raystuttgart]

To conservatives, "organizing" means ...

Nazis had little to do with todays right wing thinkining of "I am free to do whatever I want ..." in the US.
Nazis controlled almost every little thing society did by some kind of organization or law.

Nazis and "US right wing" or conservatives can not simply be thrown into one basket.
Their ideologies and world view were really quite different.

Nazis were absolutely totalitarian, they had no wish to give individuals lots of freedom.
In a Nazi regime no private person would ever wear a gun, because it would be dangerous to the rule of the regime.

 

[Lexicus]

So, the word "organize" is so associated with Marxism that a preceding sentence literally about Nazis doesn't make people think the faux-quote is what those Nazis say to each other? Y'all read a question about Nazis, saw the word 'organize' slightly below it, and went "welp, this is obviously about Marxists".

whoah whoah whoah hold up bruh I didn't just assume it or go "it obviously is," I just thought maybe you were talking about that, but if you say you weren't I of course believe you.

 

[Angst]

Nazis had little to do with todays right wing thinkining of "I am free to do whatever I want ..." in the US.
Nazis controlled almost every little thing society did by some kind of organization or law.

Nazis and "US right wing" or conservatives can not simply be thrown into one basket.
Their ideologies and world view were really quite different.

Nazis were absolutely totalitarian, they had no wish to give individuals lots of freedom.
In a Nazi regime no private person would ever wear a gun, because it would be dangerous to the rule of the regime.

About bold, this is actually a modern myth, and is largely circulated among supporters of the second amendment. It's something that makes sense when lined out as such, but it wasn't really the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument

Jews were unsurprisingly disarmed, but in general, there Nazis at worst/best (depends on your stance on gun control) furthered previous Weimar policies which weren't strict at all, and at best/worst (again, depends on your stance) were supportive of arming citizens.

 

[Zardnaar]

A lot of bad faith Godwin's law stuff is this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

Pretty much anyone who's to the right of a neo liberal or conservative with a small c is at risk of this.

It's the left wing version of the rights Communist insult for Bernie Sanders and other socialists/social democrats.

 

[Joij21]

Ah yes Ruducto ad Hitlerum, a very potent spell indeed. I remember Voldemort used this spell to kill young Harry Potter, but instead it was reflected back on himself.

 

[El_Machinae]

whoah whoah whoah hold up bruh I didn't just assume it or go "it obviously is," I just thought maybe you were talking about that, but if you say you weren't I of course believe you.

Of course that's what I meant.
I'm just frustrated that I have to tippy-toe around in a thesaurus to replace the word 'organize' when describing what political systems do when trying to enact policy, especially (apparently) when talking about Nazis and their policy of violent looting.

 

[stinkubus]

Politics describes all the ways we choose to behave, collectively, so organization is implied.

 

[El_Machinae]

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.

 

[stinkubus]

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.

 

[amadeus]

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'?

Yes. George Lincoln Rockwell was a Nazi and didn’t say America needed to expand.

 

[stinkubus]

Pat Buchanan's schtick included anti-imperialist talking points, as well. The problem with these types of figures is that you never know just how much of their stances are sincere conviction and how much are uttered simply to garner support from people disaffected by formal political institutions which are not very responsive to public opinion or pressure.

I would love to see Rand Paul be forced to cast the deciding vote on a war declaration.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes. George Lincoln Rockwell was a Nazi and didn’t say America needed to expand.

So, similar to how the Pope can expand what it means to be 'Christian', we allow later (self-identifying) Nazis to define what being a Nazi is? His interpretation becomes the new standard?
Honestly, I'm not at all familiar with the culture of the movement after Hitler died, so I don't know how developed it is.

 

[stinkubus]

Why do we need a formal definition of "Nazi" in the first place? Anyone who objects to its use when describing openly fascist political movements is unpersuadable lest the fascists target them.

 

[Kyriakos]

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.

Nice But Plato himself had elaborated on the fact that any category (which you referred to as a platonic conception) is never in tautology with anything external that can belong to it. I recall a case where he was talking about the relation of Master-Servant, explaining that while the Master-Servant dichotomy is a constant, no real life members of this dichotomy transfer into it their particulars.
In other words, the Nazi category can include anything up to loose metaphors, or alternatively the category can split to a continuum of subcategories. What is constant is the negative connotation and the allusion to a threat. Of course in the end every individual will have their own impression of the category, and one not defined in the name of the category itself, since such concepts don't exist independently of what forms them.

 

[Samson]

Why do we need a formal definition of "Nazi" in the first place? Anyone who objects to its use when describing openly fascist political movements is unpersuadable lest the fascists target them.

If the meaning of terms cannot be agreed upon communication is difficult.

 

[stinkubus]

What's the point in attempting to communicate with someone who is demonstrating that they are unpersuadable? Nothing you say matters.

 

[Samson]

What's the point in attempting to communicate with someone who is demonstrating that they are unpersuadable? Nothing you say matters.

There are a load of people in this thread who disagree about the meaning of the word who are not in the "demonstrating that they are unpersuadable" category.

 

[El_Machinae]

Why do we need a formal definition of "Nazi" in the first place? Anyone who objects to its use when describing openly fascist political movements is unpersuadable lest the fascists target them.

The thread is titled "What is a Nazi?"
I'm not looking for a 'formal definition', I'm trying to understand what people's conception is of the specific term. Er, when it's imposed on someone. Self-identification is a different story.

 

[stinkubus]

I'll reiterate my stance that only someone having fun with you by being pedantic would ever bother to deny that use of the term "Nazi" is an appropriate descriptor for any member of any fascist political movement whatsoever because most people aren't going to have a deep enough knowledge of the particulars of Nazi ideology which may have distinguished them from other fascist movements. That's just not what normal people are thinking about when you use that word.

If you're writing an academic paper then knock yourself out with the ridiculous technicalities. Professionals love that ****. In casual conversation it's completely unnecessary.