How Ethical Subjectivism, Moral Relativism and Individualism Create Totalitarian States

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

In the course of my delvings into the issue, and after a couple of years, I came to shed my old view that Totalitarian systems themselves were the byproduct of a polar opposite of Liberal Democratic ideology which had its origins in the Enlightenment. I was fascinated, as always, with Marxian Totalitarianism, and its death count, its permanent negative effects on the psyche of hundreds of millions of people, and finally their own inner resemblance - given the fact that National-Socialism and Fascism themselves were counterfeits of an essentially Socialistic ideology of the early 20th century.

More and more, however, I came to realize, by the pen of German writers themselves, how and why Germany, of all countries, came to become a Nazi State. Well the reasons are many, but I found a striking resemblance between many German writers and their attitudes of dealing with politics to ensure that Totalitarianism, at least, took root and utterly sucked away its sustenance on a main trait of German society of the day, aka Individualism.

But how could individualism produce a collectivistic system? Well to me, the issue is very much solved. Suffice to say that an individual by himself is just an individual, and in the grand scale, I and you as individuals are nothing but bureaucratic quantities, most likely a mere file number in some vast national record. The individual himself, is powerless, especially when he wants to be a mere individual. By lowering himself to the degree of a mere atom with the illusion of wordly dettachment, man effectively exposes himself to the influence of those ambitious enough to control him more effectively than anything else.

I found a short essay on the web which gives a nice and tidy summary of what I am talking about: how apolitical individualism, a dominant trait of interbellum German society, destroyed Germany for their own good. There is again, in their analysis of the life and perspective of Albert Speer, a repetition of the same thing a Hitler biographer such as Fest, in his analysis of the Nazi takeover, perceived as the main cause behind the smooth transition to Nazi totalitarian state among all Germans, and which I again reiterate: a "don't disturb me, let me do my job" (apolitical individualism) attitude which is still dominant today:

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smart...tjc/chap16.htm

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Behind such convictions an ethical subjectivism was at work which looked down contemptuously upon public affairs and saw morality exclusively in the context of private life. Profoundly involved in the world of ends, its vision and thought were concentrated solely upon its self-given aims and left the management of the state to whoever wanted to bother with it. The satisfaction of personal good conduct within the narrowly restricted zone of individual action went hand in hand with renunciation of any knowledge of the effective environment within which all activity takes place. This attitude, which might be justified in an orderly world based upon unified convictions and criteria, became involved with the maelstrom of problems raised by the modern totalitarian systems beneath the surface of all traditional ideas. It became clear that there was something unsatisfactory about the sort of political naivety that went with keeping oneself to oneself, doing whatever duty or professional code seemed to require, and taking no responsibility for the framework of force within which even strictly specialized activities must operate; (1) the more so since totalitarian regimes specifically counted on that naivety and depended on it for a good deal of their success.

The self-chosen isolation of the technological mind is one of the keys to its total readiness to serve, and the specialist who sees himself solely as a function in an environment which he neither sees nor wishes to see as a whole meets totalitarianism halfway. Hitler's vision of the future as a termite state (2) originated in this picture of the totally isolated man concerned exclusively with his limited objectives, and he carried this vision to its logical conclusion: an elite consciousness perpetually susceptible of being thus perverted. The first stages were seen in 1933, when countless people placed their technological and organizational skills at the service of the new masters without the slightest trace of disquiet, enabling the transition to the Third Reich to take place without friction in key social sectors—a striking illustration of that 'clicking into place' of the bureaucratic mechanism which Max Weber has described in his writings as the prerequisite for the seizure of power in a modern society.(3) It was a crucial step in the establishment of National Socialist power.

As almost no one else under the Third Reich, Albert Speer, Hitler's architect and later Minister of Armaments, represented this type of the narrow specialist and his technocratic amorality, until both met their refutation in him. For it was not so much ambition, the lure of an exalted career, and the almost unlimited creative possibilities open to a court artist which kept him for so many years tied to a regime whose methods were bound to be repulsive to a man of his origins and character. It was predominantly his belief that the terrorism, of which he was well aware, the persecution of minorities, arbitrary decisions, concentration camps, aggression against other countries were not his business; all this was 'politics', whereas he was an architect, a technologist, an artist. Even at Nuremberg he still maintained that his 'task was a technological and economic one', not political, and to the question did he not, as an educated man, realize that the forcible transportation of foreign workers was contrary to the law of nations, he replied that he was an architect and all he knew about law was what he read in the papers.(4) It was entirely in keeping with this that although he regularly and credibly, before the Tribunal, repudiated the use of violence, he based this repudiation not upon humanitarian considerations but upon the practical point that it hindered his constant ministerial efforts to increase output.(5)

I could write a more detailed summary on why Individualism, Libertarianism, and the general attitude of the middling man expressed so widely of a "let our own consciousness be the arbiter of our own selves" is ultimately an illusion and a trap. The reason why universal imperatives must exist, when analyzing them purely for their practical effects, is to prevent even worse universal imperatives from taking over - although the situation nowadays is not as bad as to concretize the famous Platonic saying about men unconcerned about Politics, it is sufficient enough to make me sigh whenever someone wants to make "his conscience" enough of a barrier against social, ethical and religious imperatives; the ultimate result of such an outlook can, ironically, be seen in Nazi Germany, thus creating a perfect example of a valid reductio ad Hitlerum in the consistent analysis of how a few men led an entire population otherwise with unrelated and fragmented views and interests, verily like a herd of collective farm sheep, into serving their own desires to the end.

Let us not forget, too, to deal straight away with the question of "war guilt" by reiterating that in a state such as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, there were very few men who could be counted as "Twice born Ideologues", aka men fanatically loyal and devouted to the principles of the Party who could be relied upon until the end. For even though millions can, in my opinion, be mere accomplices, very few could be trusted deeply, and that's the main reason why activities such as the Holocaust were kept concealed from the mainstream public and in the hands of a body of trained SS fanatics of a primarily volunteer extraction.

[MaximiIian]

Even though totalitarian ideologies are based on anti-individualism, groupthink, collectivism, moral absolutism, and violent opposition to subjectivism.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Even though totalitarian ideologies are based on anti-individualism, groupthink, collectivism, moral absolutism, and violent opposition to subjectivism.

[...]the ultimate result of such an outlook can, ironically, be seen in Nazi Germany, thus creating a perfect example of a valid reductio ad Hitlerum in the consistent analysis of how a few men led an entire population otherwise with unrelated and fragmented views and interests, verily like a herd of collective farm sheep, into serving their own desires to the end.

[chriscase]

Jean,
I don't see a lot about "Ethical Subjectivism" or "Moral Relativism" in your thesis. Maybe I missed them. Regarding how "Individualism" could be responsible for the creation of a "totalitarian" state, I don't think you have supported your argument very well.

In the first place, you need to demonstrate that traits such as "individualism" are not merely coincidental with the formation of something like the Nazi state. Can you demonstrate that a philosophical or intellectual trend can actually cause the formation of a particular type of government? How do we know the trait of individualism isn't a reaction to something else? Maybe you can prove this, but I don't think you have done so yet.

Do you intend to prove this for all "totalitarian" states or only Nazi Germany? The classification of "totalitarianism" is an artifact of Cold War propaganda. I'm not sure it's even particularly useful. Perhaps, if you specify which particular traits you are talking about, and express them in a measurable way, your thesis would be easier to discuss. As it is, it's shrouded in generalities.

In the interest of intellectual honesty, let me ask you this: How is your thesis falsifiable? Is there a good competing explanation? What is the strongest argument against your thesis? Where do the various scholars who study the subject (aside from Joachim C. Fest) weigh in? If you are sincere about your thesis, you ought to have a good answers to these questions.

[Denny Crane!]

Having a belief, finding an event, looking for evidence and boom you have a self serving theory.

I often find with most of these ideas I read that they are trying so hard to make that idea work that they ignore a wealth of other causes. The intellectual ideas and movements within society are more likely to be byproducts or contributory causes than prime movers, I have a hard time with anyone telling me that economics wasn't the prime causation behind the majority of events that led towards the Nazi state and from that point everything else becomes a self feeding vicious cycle played out to the extremes but witnessed in other dictatorships around the world.

I also feel to little import is placed upon the shaping effects of authoritarian power on all the other factors and events, how does that shape the mindset of the major powers in the government, the bureaucracies underneath them and the populations.

There is an automatic assumption in the text that everything is subservient to ideas - I find that simplistic and without justification. I find most of the authors, like the one you listed, rest everything on bare assertions and go on to justify their own ideas from their own bare assertions.

Pretty poor stuff in my opinion, and my apologies as I realise that you are pursuing this intellectual path at the moment and that might come off as overly critical.

[chriscase]

Hey Denny,
I assume we are going to hear some fairly strong reprimands for your admission of something along the lines of a materialist approach to the interpretation of history. I expect you are more or less bracing for the same thing as I am.

Jean,
Before you fly off the handle at our horrid neo-Marxist indoctrination or some such, allow me to say that, rather than sending this thread off into another parade of ideological hostility, you can take the opportunity to make your case in detail here.

I'm inclined to think along the same lines as Denny, that social and political realities tend to be driven more by the underlying material conditions of life, than by the intellectual trends of the time. I suppose the bottom line there is that material conditions - including the state of technology - are not so easily changed as the ideas of the time. After all, I can't personally think my lunch into existence. I need to actually go get it.

In any case, if you are going to claim that historical trends are determined principally - or even substantially - by ideas, as opposed to underlying material conditions, then by all means feel free to do so. But you do actually need to make the case. You can't simply dismiss our perspective as so much neo-Marxist rubbish and declare your point of view victorious, as you have done in the past.

[Col. Tartleton]

Fascism happened in Germany because Germany is without a doubt the Hegemon of Europe and has been since it's formation and when dominant powers get knocked down they bounce back and Invade Poland.

I mean look at examples:
France Ancien Regime> Revolution> Terror> Napoleon> Fought alongside Poland against Russia> The Man
Imperial Germany> World War I> Flat On Ass> Hitler> Invade Poland> Fascist Bastards
Imperial Russia> World War I> Revolution> Stalin> Invade Poland> Communist Monsters

[Rebelyell]

Fascism happened in Germany because Germany is without a doubt the Hegemon of Europe and has been since it's formation and when dominant powers get knocked down they bounce back and Invade Poland.

I mean look at examples:
France Ancien Regime> Revolution> Terror> Napoleon> Fought alongside Poland against Russia> The Man
Imperial Germany> World War I> Flat On Ass> Hitler> Invade Poland> Fascist Bastards
Imperial Russia> World War I> Revolution> Stalin> Invade Poland> Communist Monsters

I'm gonna have to remember that. It must suck to be Polish during periods of continental unrest.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

First off, I didn't really wish to come into extra details to keep the post readable for the forumites. And I still barely got any challenges or replies.

Second, on the issue of "materialism vs. idealism", I think that both extremes are wrong and the truth is in the middle. Nazi "Germany" could have been "Nazi Norway" instead, and not have such an impact.

Yet at the same time there is a persistent myth that material conditions shape all historical trends. This is blatantly false - the Nazi ideology was above all an anti-economical ideology, even though its main goal could be falsely constructed as being of economical omnipotence.

Finally, although Germany could still be viewed as the 'Hegemon of Europe' by many, and it indeed was very powerful, so were the Allies. So was the Soviet Union. So were the United States. The difference between the army strengths of France and Germany alone favoured the Allies in all material sectors, from motorization, to training and tank forces. I remember reading one mention, that the average infantry forces of the 3rd Reich on average were even less well trained than the French.

However, it is not my scope to argue that a purely individualistic mindframe causes Totalitarianism. On the contrary, it is to firmly establish it as one causal chain - and I have done so firmly. Individualism is not necessarily linked towards ideas of "economic freedom", propagated by Libertarian theories, but to a whole frame of mind. And it was exactly that frame of mind which I see persistently in analyzing the situation, and which was summed up so nicely.

The argument "I cannot think my lunch into existence" is actually fallacious, for the reason I mentioned (the 1940 conflict was won by Germany because of innovative ideas and military doctrine, not because of material superiority) and for so many others I can think of. You can argue that it was Germany as a whole that was a highly industrialized, powerful, and bellicose state, yet would there even be a Soviet war if Haushofer did not think of the Lebensraum thesis in the first place, and actively indoctrinated Hitler into believing it?

Would there be a Holocaust or an "Aryan race" (all terms with a strictly traceable intellectual lineage) were it not for biologism, social darwinism, and the assorted body of idealism that grew around the prominence of biological sciences since the 19th century?

So yes, although ideas are mere ideas and "don't buy lunch", every visionary, which includes many millionaires, is an idealist, a man who thinks of his capabilities beyond what is immediately visible and provable. Ideas themselves are as concrete as weapons, and to deny this seems to try and refute all history, a complete absurdity.

[Denny Crane!]

I'm sure you are an alt for Ummon and have been for some time. Same belief system and the same response when challenged - oh it is to complicated for a forum. Seems like a copout to me, a retreat.

Just the other week ChrisCase and Blau and Green were discussing propositional logic which is unreadable to the majority of the population and there is nothing stopping you putting the more complex explanation in spoilers, anything less for such bold claims basically renders the thread a waste of time.

I don't think anyone is advancing a strictly pure materialist pattern for any historical event because that is extreme, however your first proposition seemed extreme to me and was offered with no justification, evidence or proof and this post has shown further evidence of this. A great deal of rambling with no substance.

irst off, I didn't really wish to come into extra details to keep the post readable for the forumites. And I still barely got any challenges or replies.

Second, on the issue of "materialism vs. idealism", I think that both extremes are wrong and the truth is in the middle. Nazi "Germany" could have been "Nazi Norway" instead, and not have such an impact.

Yet at the same time there is a persistent myth that material conditions shape all historical trends. This is blatantly false - the Nazi ideology was above all an anti-economical ideology,

Anti economical ideology? What does this even mean, it means nothing. There is no such thing as an anti economical ideology. There is command economies, state capitalism and destructive economic policies. The Nazi economy could be called state capitalism.

"world history teaches us that no people has become great through its economy but that a people can very well perish thereby",

"the economy is something of secondary importance"

"I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative"

- Hitler

His economic ideology was mixed, and shifted with time. He believed in higher ideals of nationhood and destinies but at the same time recognised the need for a thriving economy and encouraged heavy government involvement in that economy with nationalised corporations but also a large private economy of large businesses as well. He even incorporated old age insurance plans amongst other things.

even though its main goal could be falsely constructed as being of economical omnipotence.

"The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all." - Hitler

You'll forgive me for wondering if you know what you are talking about with regards to Hitler amongst many things.

Finally, although Germany could still be viewed as the 'Hegemon of Europe' by many, and it indeed was very powerful, so were the Allies. So was the Soviet Union. So were the United States. The difference between the army strengths of France and Germany alone favoured the Allies in all material sectors, from motorization, to training and tank forces. I remember reading one mention, that the average infantry forces of the 3rd Reich on average were even less well trained than the French.

Irrelevant.

However, it is not my scope to argue that a purely individualistic mindframe causes Totalitarianism. On the contrary, it is to firmly establish it as one causal chain - and I have done so firmly. Individualism is not necessarily linked towards ideas of "economic freedom", propagated by Libertarian theories, but to a whole frame of mind. And it was exactly that frame of mind which I see persistently in analyzing the situation, and which was summed up so nicely.

Where did you establish a causal chain. I saw a great deal of talking with no substance. As I stated before it was a bare assertion, that you are backing up with your own bare assertions. This is not a debate...

So another paragraph that says nothing.

The argument "I cannot think my lunch into existence" is actually fallacious, for the reason I mentioned (the 1940 conflict was won by Germany because of innovative ideas and military doctrine, not because of material superiority) and for so many others I can think of. You can argue that it was Germany as a whole that was a highly industrialized, powerful, and bellicose state, yet would there even be a Soviet war if Haushofer did not think of the Lebensraum thesis in the first place, and actively indoctrinated Hitler into believing it?

1940's conflict was relatively minor compared to the rest of the war. There was some very poor defensive planning on the part of the French and that was the only major fortified line that they had to bypass. Once the conflict began with vigour then it was the availability of supply and demand within the theatre of war that gave the Allies a massive advantage over Germany. In fact in 1940 Germans first real mistake was trying to dominate Britains airspace, a country who was materially prepared to counter them and of course they were repulsed.

Though what this has to do with the original proposition is beyond me.

Would there be a Holocaust or an "Aryan race" (all terms with a strictly traceable intellectual lineage) were it not for biologism, social darwinism, and the assorted body of idealism that grew around the prominence of biological sciences since the 19th century?

Social Darwinism is something that is not associated at all with individualism - it is the opposite. It is the collective unity and strength of a race that was featured in social darwinism if you were to apply that within the context of the Nazi philosophy.

So yes, although ideas are mere ideas and "don't buy lunch", every visionary, which includes many millionaires, is an idealist, a man who thinks of his capabilities beyond what is immediately visible and provable. Ideas themselves are as concrete as weapons, and to deny this seems to try and refute all history, a complete absurdity.

And once again you slip back into the mindset of black and white argumentation. Who at what point said ideas didn't matter, what was said is that major political movements and events in history usually have at their base materialistic concerns and pressures with contributory causes that arise from intellectual ideas or the spread of ideas through society - but even those ideas usually are themselves originated from some event or material concern like the disparity of wealth or power in society and Tom Paines motivations for his subject matter. It is forming a synthesis of how all events and pressures shape and influence.

The reason why I think you really are falling astray is because you are desperately trying to match events and facts to your ideas. You aren't looking at things and being objective to form conclusions, you are looking at things with the express purpose of solidifying your bias. That's cool, I do it too, but I suspect I'm a touch more aware of it than you are.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I'm sure you are an alt for Ummon and have been for some time. Same belief system and the same response when challenged - oh it is to complicated for a forum. Seems like a copout to me, a retreat.

Aren't you sure you're describing yourself here? "Looks like a copout to me, a retreat". Lol

Oh and BTW, you're wrong in your speculations. I am not Ummon, on the contrary I used to argue with him a lot. But I can see why you would think that: Materialism is myopia. An idealist is just a myopic man with glasses, so it's not surprising at all to see learned people becoming idealists .

Just the other week ChrisCase and Blau and Green were discussing propositional logic which is unreadable to the majority of the population and there is nothing stopping you putting the more complex explanation in spoilers, anything less for such bold claims basically renders the thread a waste of time.

Lol, and what has that to do with readership count lol?

I don't think anyone is advancing a strictly pure materialist pattern for any historical event because that is extreme, however your first proposition seemed extreme to me and was offered with no justification, evidence or proof and this post has shown further evidence of this. A great deal of rambling with no substance.

I think so, therefore it is true! Makes me think you're even more of a hyper-idealist than I am .

Anti economical ideology? What does this even mean, it means nothing. There is no such thing as an anti economical ideology. There is command economies, state capitalism and destructive economic policies. The Nazi economy could be called state capitalism.

LOL, epic fail here! Your own quotes disprove your stance! "Anti-economic", not positing "jobs", or the "Economy", or "Money", or their stock market index as primary, the Nazis believed economy was a mere accessory to be squeezed at will by the army. That is precisely what I meant - all sorts of purely economic activities, like monetary speculation, were to be brutally repressed in favour of the war industry, war economy, production & so on.

His economic ideology was mixed, and shifted with time. He believed in higher ideals of nationhood and destinies but at the same time recognised the need for a thriving economy and encouraged heavy government involvement in that economy with nationalised corporations but also a large private economy of large businesses as well. He even incorporated old age insurance plans amongst other things.

Hitler believed that the economy must serve the State, and that's about it. Whatever else could count in as a plus for that, would be in: you can read Hjalmar Schacht's or any assessment of the Reich's economy prior to the war to find out the obvious: Hitler was concerned first and foremost *NOT* with economic growth, but with rearmament. He was not concerned with peacetime economic activities, consumer industry or anything besides economic "growth" that would favour his war projects first and foremost, which were his utmost concerns.

He had no qualms about suffocating the Reich's monetary reserves and the Reich's industry to have his plans met. By 1939 Germany was close to bankruptcy, and it was only the systematic pillage of all Europe that prevented them from going bankrupt and facing yet another depression.

Your assessment is not only irrelevant, it is completely superficial. Hitler's statement about economic theory very well showed his utter pragmatism on the issue, which is to say, derived from a lack of concern and even hostility - closely associated with his hatred of Jews as an economic class and "speculation". If a Free Market gave him better results at producing tanks than a strictly controlled economy (something which must go inherently against logic), then Hitler would have a Free Market instead of a Nazi war economy.

Irrelevant.

So ideas don't buy bread, eh? All that is required to do things is to have material superiority, eh?

Where did you establish a causal chain. I saw a great deal of talking with no substance. As I stated before it was a bare assertion, that you are backing up with your own bare assertions. This is not a debate...

So another paragraph that says nothing.

Wait, and your detailed refutation comes from and when?

I think so, therefore it is true! Makes me think you're even more of a hyper-idealist than I am .

1940's conflict was relatively minor compared to the rest of the war. There was some very poor defensive planning on the part of the French and that was the only major fortified line that they had to bypass. Once the conflict began with vigour then it was the availability of supply and demand within the theatre of war that gave the Allies a massive advantage over Germany. In fact in 1940 Germans first real mistake was trying to dominate Britains airspace, a country who was materially prepared to counter them and of course they were repulsed.

Though what this has to do with the original proposition is beyond me.

1940's conflict practically decided the war. If it was Baldwin or Chamberlain instead of Churchill on Downing Street, the fall of France would have meant a separate peace with Germany. Read John Luckaks' many assessments on the period for why I think so.

And yes it was an important theater.

As for the rest of the war, your analysis is wonderfully naive, simplistic and ultimately irrelevant. The war was won on the Eastern Front, and the Russian material superiority was only part of the business given their complete and utter tactical incompetence: until Stavka could learn how to do basic math calculations and start operating on a decent doctrine at strategical level, which took up to 1943, the Germans won strings of victories against the Russians even when badly outnumbered and even when being thousands of kilometers away from their main supply centers. Same thing for the Finns, who did so up to 1944.

Germany's mistake was to resort to bombing of civilian targets instead of military-industrial ones and not having a strategic bomber fleet or well trained strategic bomber officer corps. The RAF was suffering badly even when close to their own supply centers and even at their own emergency footing.

But I concur. I only showed this as an example of why extreme materialism never explains anything .

Social Darwinism is something that is not associated at all with individualism - it is the opposite. It is the collective unity and strength of a race that was featured in social darwinism if you were to apply that within the context of the Nazi philosophy.

Actually no. That's just Nazi doctrine. Social Darwinism existed before and was quite independent, advocated even by Liberal economic philosophers such as Malthus, and to a certain extent Marx or Ricardo.

And once again you slip back into the mindset of black and white argumentation. Who at what point said ideas didn't matter, what was said is that major political movements and events in history usually have at their base materialistic concerns and pressures with contributory causes that arise from intellectual ideas or the spread of ideas through society - but even those ideas usually are themselves originated from some event or material concern like the disparity of wealth or power in society and Tom Paines motivations for his subject matter. It is forming a synthesis of how all events and pressures shape and influence.

The reason why I think you really are falling astray is because you are desperately trying to match events and facts to your ideas. You aren't looking at things and being objective to form conclusions, you are looking at things with the express purpose of solidifying your bias. That's cool, I do it too, but I suspect I'm a touch more aware of it than you are.

Actually, no. You're just pretending you can dismiss my line of argumentation outright, which goes to say how much you know about the issue.

Tom Paine is an utterly foolish philosopher. He's comparable to your average "Trotskyte" college professor: a man who advocates a rather foggy concept of "Freedom" and glorifies serial murderers like the 1789 French or the 1917 Russians for their "liberating" action (which consists in nothing more than an even more bitter slavery). I don't take him seriously on most, if any of his points.

[Denny Crane!]

Right I'm really struggling to see what I am supposed to be arguing here. And I really don't think I have anything to prove that I can hold my own in a debate but I'm not sure of the point here. We started off with you saying that you've described a causation and that is individualism breeds totalitarianism, there wasn't anything to refute as you didn't provide any evidence, you then followed that up by a few paragraphs of disjointed concepts that followed no flow and to continue this reply leads us into a discussion which fits much better in the VV and we could argue World War 2 if you want but that isn't going to prove one way or another what you were originally trying to say. On Hitler by the way, of course he was running a war time economy using a state capitalist method but that is not anti economic at all that is to say he used it for a specific purpose and leveraged it to the hilt. Anti Economic would not do that, anti implies devestaion he simply used it as a tool which...worked for the purposes he needed it for. THat is proeconomic, that is someone using it as a tool and using it rather well I might add but why was this even brought up?

It seems there is little to argue except for your views on WW2 and the rest is mainly trite replies that would probably be responded to in kind by myself and that isn't productive. I will pick up one point, about social darwinism, I assumed since you'd been going on and on about WW2 that you used it in this sense

The term was popularized in the United States in 1944 by the American historian Richard Hofstadter who used it in the ideological war effort against fascism to denote a reactionary creed which promoted competitive strife, racism and nationalism. Before Hofstadter's work the use of the term in English academic journals was quite rare.[7] The term "social darwinism" has rarely been used by advocates of the supposed ideologies or ideas; instead it has almost always been used (pejoratively) by its opponents

And to be honest it is a bit of a term that doesn't really denote any meaning to me and is somewhat of a collective pejorative for a broad range of ideas. Furthermore I didn't raise Tom Paine because I'm some fan it was just an example of an enlightenment thinker being motivated by the pressures of the time brought about by urban shifts and changing demographics.

You seem to think you've laid out a master piece and I'm challenging you to support it before I can refute it and if you could do so coherently and actually remain on topic somewhat broadly and actually provide some evidence for your pieces. It is at best a random take and speculation on a broad range of events, opinions and little else to argue and I'm left with you going 'nananana my opinion is better than yours' but ultimately that is what this is, an opinion thread dealing with a very broad take on large swathes of history.....

That being said I am going to try and salvage something from this thread if at all possible....

Can we focus on ONE specific event and ONE specific period in history. Rather than looking at Germanies war time performance let us instead examine the rise of Lenin and the take over. Can you (sticking to this subject only when we discuss this) tell me why and how you think individualism played its role in Lenins rise to power and the actions that occurred from that. I am picking this because you seemed to focus on it as central to your theme from the first paragraph.

[Claudius Gothicus]

I have a better theory... economic failure, political inaction, divided society and unresolved cultural/historic process tend to generate the growing ground for extremist ideologies.

Also, in most cases it all comes down to a single moment of individual weakness within a system incapable of accountability. Like when Von Papen gave in to Hitler.

Sociological events are the product of 2 elements interacting on synchrony: Agency and Structure.