Is Nationalist Socialism a viable form of Government?

[Event Horizon]

Inspired by the Holocaust Denial thread, where a particular poster was arguing that Germany as a nation feels no after effects from the political ideology of Nationalist Socialist Germany, I thought I would pose this question to the mudpit.

My point was that Nationalist Socialism was a threat far outside the normal remit of wars of resources and simple expansion of power, although ofcourse those elements did exist in Nazi Germany, and that the threat of Nationalist Socialism and the meaning of the war between Germany and the Allies was of a completely different nature to the war with Japan.

I based my conclusion on the points that the U.S.A allied itself with Stalinist Russia of all states, that Nationalist Socialism is as about as close to a taboo word in the World as you can get, and that defeat had a profound and lasting impact on the national identity of Germany. Germany prior and post its occupation and division are almost two irreconcibly different national identities, and indeed the ideology of Germany prior to defeat is almost scoured from the "proper" public face of Germany as we know it today.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the pro's and con's of Nationalist Socialism as practiced in Germany under Adolf Hitler, to see if we can expose and understand this political ideology to a degree where we can understand how the Allies themselves must have perceived this ideology during the Second World War.

No one has to associate themselves with the ideology to propose any "theoretical" positive and negatives. For example one could state that a pro of Nationalist Socialism is a high level of political ideological agreement amongst those that consider themselves "emancipated".

I would appreciate it if we could attempt to avoid flames and hatred, and focus instead on revealing this political ideology in it's true meaning to outside observers. Thank you in advance.

[Giuliano Taverna]

If you could separate National socialism from eugenics, competitive breeding, and expulsion of minorities. Then possibly, but all of the above create casus belli for neighboring states.

Really Nazism was great for ethnic Germans, it just sucked for everyone else. And since everyone else make up the greater part of the world. It didn't work out too well.

Also I think in the long term purposely limiting genetic diversity could lead to self extinction.

[paokmam]

If you could separate National socialism from eugenics, competitive breeding, and expulsion of minorities. Then possibly, but all of the above create casus belli for neighboring states.

Really Nazism was great for ethnic Germans, it just sucked for everyone else. And since everyone else make up the greater part of the world. It didn't work out too well.

Also I think in the long term purposely limiting genetic diversity could lead to self extinction.

Agree...

[CtrlAltDe1337]

I don't think it would work even as well as Socialist Europe now. Fascism just isn't a very efficient form of government.

[Event Horizon]

I don't think it would work even as well as Socialist Europe now. Fascism just isn't a very efficient form of government.

How do you mean?

[Bovril]

Fascism is certainly viable. Look at Spain and Portugal. But it's a bad, bad form of government that keeps very few of its promises. Nazism is hard to comment on. Its logic was self destructive because it was so concerned with the expansion of Germany. Had this element been removed, maybe half of Europe would still be Fascist.

[Nouvelle Vague]

Fascism is certainly viable. Look at Spain and Portugal.

I don't think you could consider Spain post civil war fascist. Looking at their actual policies and the way the economic boom came into effect. It was more conservative and traditional than anything else. Even using liberal notions in the area of economics for example.

[Bovril]

I don't think you could consider Spain post civil war fascist. Looking at their actual policies and the way the economic boom came into effect. It was more conservative and traditional than anything else. Even using liberal notions in the area of economics for example.

It depends how you define Fascism, of course. But I don't think Spain acted in ways that many Fascist theorists of the 30s had not allready argued in favour of. Market liberalism is not anathema to Fascism in and of itself after all. I do agree that there was a gradual erosion of Fascism in Spain, and the government was always a fairly broad church, but I think Fascism was a major guiding principal. Conservatism and traditionalism are features of much Fascist theorising. Look at Julius Evola, for instance.

[Nouvelle Vague]

It depends how you define Fascism, of course. But I don't think Spain acted in ways that many Fascist theorists of the 30s had not allready argued in favour of. Market liberalism is not anathema to Fascism in and of itself after all. I do agree that there was a gradual erosion of Fascism in Spain, and the government was always a fairly broad church, but I think Fascism was a major guiding principal. Conservatism and traditionalism are features of much Fascist theorising. Look at Julius Evola, for instance.

Well most definitions would entail a type of evolution or even revolutionary action toward current political thinking. Though I cant say I agree with the man but Franco's actions overall are clearly different from that of what we would consider tradition Fascists. Think he may have been viewed more so in that light because of his hate for Communists. Someone like Stanley Payne outlines some promenade differences.

[Phalanx300]

Ofcourse it is, Spartans did it and didn't extreminate any peoples.

Then again Spartan system can't really be compared with any system.

[guerra]

Nationalism is a bad policy. It's inherently racist and segregationist. It's even in the name.

Socialism doesn't work. People need incentives, and no incentive is better than money. That's why Western Capitalist countries have more inventors, more technology, they are just more advanced in technology and the Communist states can't keep up. It has nothing to do with race. It's a matter of incentive, since Canada, USA, Britain, France, etc get all the brilliant minds from other countries. People work hard when they get rewarded, they don't work hard when all their time and effort goes to the government.

[Fishy]

Nationalism is a bad policy. It's inherently racist and segregationist. It's even in the name.

Socialism doesn't work. People need incentives, and no incentive is better than money. That's why Western Capitalist countries have more inventors, more technology, they are just more advanced in technology and the Communist states can't keep up. It has nothing to do with race. It's a matter of incentive, since Canada, USA, Britain, France, etc get all the brilliant minds from other countries. People work hard when they get rewarded, they don't work hard when all their time and effort goes to the government.

There is a huge difference between socialism and communism. A socialist country will still take care of it's weaker citizens and reward those that take good care of themselves.

[Event Horizon]

Nationalism is a bad policy. It's inherently racist and segregationist. It's even in the name.

Socialism doesn't work. People need incentives, and no incentive is better than money. That's why Western Capitalist countries have more inventors, more technology, they are just more advanced in technology and the Communist states can't keep up. It has nothing to do with race. It's a matter of incentive, since Canada, USA, Britain, France, etc get all the brilliant minds from other countries. People work hard when they get rewarded, they don't work hard when all their time and effort goes to the government.

But what about when that motivation is ideological; nationalism and racial supremacy?

In other words, when socialistic economic and political philosophy is united with collectivist racial, morale, cultural, national or religious ideology, is not then the problem with socialism turned into a strength?

[MathiasOfAthens]

Nationalism in a very limited sense is viable but whenever one group beleives they are superior to another group then no good can come out of it. Nationalism was, however, crucial to the development of the nation-state of today. The formation of Germany, Italy, United States.

[guerra]

Nationalism in a very limited sense is viable but whenever one group beleives they are superior to another group then no good can come out of it. Nationalism was, however, crucial to the development of the nation-state of today. The formation of Germany, Italy, United States.

The USA is not a nation state. It's a multinational state. Same with Italy and Germany, to lesser extent. Japan is a nation state.

[MathiasOfAthens]

The USA is not a nation state. It's a multinational state. Same with Italy and Germany, to lesser extent. Japan is a nation state.

True it is a multinational country today, and same is true for Germany and Italy, your exactly right, but at the time the countries were form they were form on the basis of the citizens of the colonies, or the Germans, or Italians. Japan was form through conquest.

[guerra]

Ideology motivates imbeciles, not geniuses. Adam Smith didn't work for ideology. David Ricardo didn't work for ideology. Marx did. Who are the winners?

Racial supremacy? Hah, there is humanity. No such thing as racial supremacy, ignorance and being inbred is not supremacy.

You can't engineer culture, you can't artificially create a country. Countries are forged through blood, sweat and tears. All the countries with arbitrary borders are the most unstable. Countries that fought for their borders are much more stable. Look at Africa and The Middle East. Carved out by Europeans arbitrarily. Divide and Rule.

So, National Socialism can't work. It's not sustainable. Only ignorant Nazis would like to think differently.

[Ahlerich]

nationalism is the dangerous part of social nationalism

[Visna]

Tried and tested. Failed. Move on.

[rusina]

It's national socialism, and it doesn't work in the modern world.