[nucklepunche]

Quite honestly, there is a difference in value systems here.

A valid point. However, one thing I've never heard is a defense of the racial nationalist value system from first principles. I'd like to see the philosophical points this is rooted in. As of now the only thing I can see (on the surface) justifying it is emotion.

[Wolfman]

"Such as?" You are essentially asking me to "prove" an ideological and personal philosophic worldview. Ridiculous.

No, I'm asking you to provide examples that the Nazis did something worthwhile.

I have only been honest about my personal views in this discussion. If my words aren't real enough or don't synchronize with your word games, I truly don't give a damn.

I don't know what the hell your position in this debate is other then "Hitler rox"

National pride, strength, and unity. Class cooperation. Spiritual purification. The reclaimation of lost land. Ambitious national construction products. Youth health and martial spirit. The formation of an ethnic state with a sense of its own history. These are undoubtably values which are lost on today's generations.

And obliterated in Germany as a result of the Nazis.

[nucklepunche]

I don't know what the hell your position in this debate is other then "Hitler rox"

I think that is oversimplifying it a bit Publius, as far as FRS is concerned. I have seen all the arguments from him and others in the past for why Hitler is good. I hate to defend such thinking, but it is a lot less simple than just "Hitler rox." What I am aiming at is this: the values which justify Hitler are a values considered a social pariah in modern times and I have never once in my entire life seen a rational justification for race based nationalism. As much as I oppose libertarianism at least they have the non-aggression principle as a sort of "first principle." I think it is a cop out and I have destroyed it on social contract grounds on this forum time and time again but it is a first principle. I've seen all the arguments for Hitler and I've seen the values that can justify this, but what are the first principles that justify those values?

[Far-Right Sage]

No, I'm asking you to provide examples that the Nazis did something worthwhile.

I have. Reclaiming land, for many, was and is worthwhile. The outcome of the war has no bearing on this. The expulsion of the French and their Sengalese lackeys from the Rheinland was very worthwhile indeed. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. You asked me to justify my own opinions and I have done so.

No serious historian would tell anyone that the Nazis did nothing "worthwhile". You running from such a reality is as childish as me refusing to admit any positive aspect or results from the Soviet system, simply because I hold it in contempt.

And obliterated in Germany as a result of the Nazis

If your entire position is to ignore or trivialize any positive aspect people then and now can find in the regime and NSDAP leadership, simply because Germany lost and such policies were reversed, that is no position at all. If I were asked to name positive aspects of the Soviet system, I would do so, rather than shout "Irrelevant because the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991 and therefore their ideas don't matter!" in the most puerile of fashions.

the values which justify Hitler are a values considered a social pariah in modern times and I have never once in my entire life seen a rational justification for race based nationalism.

I advocate and have always advocated that the most positive path forward for all nations is the formation of the ethnic folk-state. Pan-nationalism, if you will.

I also have personal reasons for my beliefs and have always lived according to said beliefs.

[starman2003]

The survival of the Axis depended upon the success of Barbarossa.

The reich shouldn't have attacked russia at all. Had they limited their war to the democracies, preferably just Britain, they would've stood a good chance.

The Axis was doomed to fail in time.

Perhaps, given their overly ambitious plans, but it says nothing about the relative merits of democracy and fascism. If only Adolf had half the raw materials and industrial output of his enemies...Btw Preston, look at a map of Israel and its Arab adversaries in past wars. Impressions garnered from maps can be misleading at times.

[Wolfman]

I have. Reclaiming land, for many, was and is worthwhile. The outcome of the war has no bearing on this.

That would be what, 100 square miles in Belgium lost because Germany lost a different war that they started for no reason? I wasn't aware that Germany once occupied the whole of Europe

If your entire position is to ignore or trivialize any positive aspect people then and now can find in the regime and NSDAP leadership, simply because Germany lost and such policies were reversed, that is no position at all.

I wasn't talking about the lose of those things as a result of Germany losing WWII. Half of those things were lost as a direct result of Nazi action.

[Preston Cole]

The reich shouldn't have attacked russia at all. Had they limited their war to the democracies, preferably just Britain, they would've stood a good chance.

This would have been the more logical step, from an ideological perspective, yes. Eliminate one of fascism's enemies and leave the other one for later. The interests of fascism and the interests of Nazi Germany differed, however, and that was the beginning of the end for European fascism.

That would be what, 100 square miles in Belgium lost because Germany lost a different war that they started for no reason? I wasn't aware that Germany once occupied the whole of Europe

I find it hilarious that everyone uses the "Germany started a war for no reason and they deserved Versailles" argument. It's like a wimpy nerd hating a school jock because he has the looks and muscles that attract a lot of girls. It's just a loser's argument. No more, no less.

Then you expect the Germans, a patriotic and proud people, to simply tolerate those draconian sanctions without lifting a rifle and flag. The West's attitude toward the whole Versailles affair is just too idiotic to get my head around it.

Beside that, I'm sure no one would condone the US being disintegrated if it would theoretically start a disastrous war on its own in the future. From your and others' perspective, Germany deserved it because it was a nationalist empire seeking expansion, while the US is doing the same thing today but its actions are tolerated on disgusting "humanitarian" grounds.

[Wolfman]

It's just a loser's argument. No more, no less.

A losers argument being used by the guy who won? Oh, and how about noticing what my name is

From your and others' perspective, Germany deserved it because it was a nationalist empire seeking expansion, while the US is doing the same thing today but its actions are tolerated on disgusting "humanitarian" grounds.

Where you're wrong is in assuming I support imperial aims at all.

[Far-Right Sage]

That would be what, 100 square miles in Belgium lost because Germany lost a different war that they started for no reason? I wasn't aware that Germany once occupied the whole of Europe

The German Empire didn't start the Great War. Not many serious historians would lend that idea much credence either.

And beyond the land in Belgium - the Anschluss, the reinstatement of sovereignty and full control in the Rheinland, the Sudetenland with a sizeable population of ethnic Germans, Danzig, Elsaß-Lothringen, etc. These are all areas which Germany annexed to jubilant applause. The loss of land after the war is entirely irrelevant. The list of territorual seizures alone is a list of "positive things" and "accomplishments".

[The Immortal Goon]

I didn't read the later posts, but as per the OP and a few others, I have only ever really heard communists and other materialists talk a lot about technocracy - though it does pop up now and then in other places.

"Technocracy" can come true only under communism, when the dead hands of private property rights and private profits are lifted from your industrial system. The most daring proposals of the Hoover commission on standardization and rationalization will seem childish compared to the new possibilities let loose by American communism.

National industry will be organized along the line of the conveyor belt in your modern continuous-production automotive factories. Scientific planning can be lifted out of the individual factory and applied to your entire economic system. The results will be stupendous.

Costs of production will be cut to 20 percent, or less, of their present figure. This, in turn, would rapidly increase your farmers’ purchasing power.

To be sure, the American soviets would establish their own gigantic farm enterprises, as schools of voluntary collectivization. Your farmers could easily calculate whether it was to their individual advantage to remain as isolated links or to join the public chain.

The same method would be used to draw small businesses and industries into the national organization of industry. By soviet control of raw materials, credits and quotas of orders, these secondary industries could be kept solvent until they were gradually and without compulsion sucked into the socialized business system.

Without compulsion! The American soviets would not need to resort to the drastic measures that circumstances have often imposed upon the Russians.

The issue tends to be that fascism tends to have all kinds of imaginary spiritual platitudes that it bases itself upon:

Fascism could not be understood in many of its practical manifestations as a party organization, as a system of education, as a discipline, if it were not always looked at in the light of its whole way of conceiving life, a spiritualized way. The world see through Fascism is not this material world which appears on the surface, in which man is an individual separated from all others and standing by himself. . . . The man of Fascism is an individual who is nation and fatherland, which is a moral law, binding together individuals and the generations into a tradition and a mission, suppressing the instinct for a life enclosed within the brief round of pleasure in order to restore within duty a higher life free from the limits of time and space; a life in which the individual, through the denial of himself, through the sacrifice of his own private interests, through death itself, realizes that completely spiritual existence in which his value as a man lies.

Therefore it is a spiritualized conception, itself the result of the general reaction of modern times against the flabby materialistic positivism of the nineteenth century...The Fascist State, the highest and most powerful form of personality, is a force, but a spiritual force, which takes over all the forms of the moral and intellectual life of man. . . . It is the form, the inner standard and the discipline of the whole person; it saturates the will as well as the intelligence. Its principle, the central inspiration of the human personality living in the civil community, pierces into the depths and makes its home in the heart of the man of action as well as of the thinker, of the artist as well as of the scientist: it is the soul of the soul.

...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....

Marxists are firmly materialists - and technocrats tend to be as well. While I can't say that fascism must exclude technocracy, most technocrats would respond better to, "increase material production will lead to a new and better society," than, "The spiritual force of my ideology will seep into everything and change everything with spiritual magicness."

[Fasces]

Modern fascist movements are increasingly materialist in focus, so that distinction does not stand today. The association between the Technate and fascism comes from the view of the Technate as a fundamental manifestation of class cooperation, ultimately eroding the differences between classes - but not empowering the proletariat while doing so. In a fascist Technate, it is likely that classes would still exist, and likely still defined by the role they play in controlling the means of production: Whether they do so as managers or workers, for example. However, such a society WOULD be more egalitarian and equal, but this does not by definition mean a contradiction with fascism, if the Technate, for example, were limited by national lines, or if the state appropriated on the basis of need to the population, rather than want, using the rest for grand works of national restoration - or, more likely, given the mindset of modern fascists, space exploration and colonization.

[Wolfman]

The German Empire didn't start the Great War. Not many serious historians would lend that idea much credence either.

No, they just turned a local war fought over an assassination, into a global war over the desire of the German Empire to take over France

And beyond the land in Belgium - the Anschluss, the reinstatement of sovereignty and full control in the Rheinland, the Sudetenland with a sizeable population of ethnic Germans, Danzig, Elsaß-Lothringen, etc. These are all areas which Germany annexed to jubilant applause. The loss of land after the war is entirely irrelevant. The list of territorual seizures alone is a list of "positive things" and "accomplishments".

Retaking lost lands I could understand. Taking over Belgium to reclaim a 100 square miles is ridiculous. Taking over France to claim a territory that had been disputed for 200 years is ludicrous. The only thing you have that the Nazis did was reclaim lost territories, which they did in the most stupid way possible and which was done in a way that any rational person could have told them would lead to their own downfall.

[nucklepunche]

The association between the Technate and fascism comes from the view of the Technate as a fundamental manifestation of class cooperation, ultimately eroding the differences between classes - but not empowering the proletariat while doing so.

To me technocracy is socialist in a certain sense, but it is non-Marxist in that it rejects class conflict. The purpose of this was to get discussion started so I am not contradicting myself. You have to remember that Mussolini himself was originally a socialist. Most socialists were opposed to class warfare in the early period, it is just that Marx came in and his ideas came to dominate the whole left, even social democrats often frame things in terms of rich vs. poor. The Democrats, though mere social democrats, in this country are more Marxist in their social analysis than I am. I have a tough time explaining this to right-wingers how one can be a socialist and not a Marxist, but it is true.

[Far-Right Sage]

No, they just turned a local war fought over an assassination, into a global war over the desire of the German Empire to take over France

Rather than leaving Austria-Hungary defenseless following the inevitable Russian intervention against Vienna which would lead to an expansion of Russian and Serbian influence in Central and Southeastern Europe? Every power had a motivation for playing their role in WWI. The Russian Empire wanted to smash the Austro-Hungarian Empire as a state and unite the Slavs on the continent, still viewing themselves as guardians of the Orthodox faith in Europe and willing conquerors of Constantinople.

If Germany desired to "take over France" it could have easily done so following the decisive Prussian victory in 1871 after Napoleon III's collapse. It could have done so again following the decisive victory in the Battle of France, in which German mercy still allowed the existence of Vichy France under Petain (until the French weakness in North Africa was made clear post-Operation Torch) and the escape of French in retreat on the beaches of Dunkerque.

And the British role was purely to preserve dominance in European affairs and protect an empire it had gained through centuries of brutal conquest. Once again, Belgian neutrality, as the war guarantee to Poland, served as a convenient pretext, as figures like Edward Grey made clear to the world.

[Wolfman]

Rather than leaving Austria-Hungary defenseless following the inevitable Russian intervention against Vienna which would lead to an expansion of Russian and Serbian influence in Central and Southeastern Europe?

Yeah. And?

The Russian Empire wanted to smash the Austro-Hungarian Empire as a state and unite the Slavs on the continent

Not unlike the Germans in WWII, wanting to smash France, Belgium, and Poland to unite the Germans on the continent.

decisive Prussian victory in 1871 after Napoleon III's collapse

The Prussian victory in the Franco-Prussian War (which is what I think you're referring to) gave the German Empire a decent chunk of French land (yes, Rhineland is French, not German), and the war itself for the Germans was not about taking over France anyways.

It could have done so again following the decisive victory in the Battle of France, in which German mercy still allowed the existence of Vichy France

Vichy France was a puppet state! The Germans owned the Vichy, and owned France as a result.

[Far-Right Sage]

Yeah. And?

Not in Germany's interest. Simple as that.

Not unlike the Germans in WWII, wanting to smash France, Belgium, and Poland to unite the Germans on the continent.

Yeah. And?

The Prussian victory in the Franco-Prussian War (which is what I think you're referring to) gave the German Empire a decent chunk of French land (yes, Rhineland is French, not German), and the war itself for the Germans was not about taking over France anyways.

Yes, just as chunks of German land were given to Poland, Denmark, France, and others following the conclusion of the Great War. I realize the intent of the Franco-Prussian War on Bismarck's behalf was not the conquest of all of France, which was precisely my point. You claimed that Germany simply started wars out of its desire to "take over France". Germany could have taken direct control of the whole of France twice and chose not to.

Vichy France was a puppet state! The Germans owned the Vichy, and owned France as a result.

Vichy France was still allowed to maintain some independence in domestic affairs and its policies, centered around Petain's Révolution nationale, were based upon integralist and organic French principles and ideas which only took root in Germany following the political surge of Fascism in Europe as a whole.

Germany didn't plan to administer the whole of France and would have desired Vichy to be a strong state - not strong enough to threaten German interests, but strong enough to defend its territory and overseas properties from the Allies. This was proven negative when the British and Americans walked into French North Africa with token resistance. Thus, Vichy France was occupied, but it was not always to be so.

[nucklepunche]

I love how off topic this has gotten. Isn't this stuff about Germany best reserved for a different forum? I came to hear people's thoughts on my original subject, which is the relationship of technocracy to fascism. I stand by my belief that Nazi Germany was not fascist, and that Nazism is a right-wing populist movement, and fascism is inherently elitist, albeit meritocratic. I tend to agree with Mencken that Hitler was merely a common Ku Kluxer who happened to gain a lot of power by riding an emotional wave of a mass movement of middle and working class Germans who felt their way of life under threat and Hitler happened to be the best orator so it ended up being him. The Nazis saw it so they chose him as their leader. In truth Hitler lacked any philosophical depth. He was a common Ku Kluxer who just hated Jews and was surrounded half by occultist nutters like Himmler and half by ladder climbers who would gravitate toward any regime if it gave them power. Hitler had nothing to do with technocracy, he was essentially a Keynesian capitalist.

[Wolfman]

Not in Germany's interest. Simple as that.

Yeah. And?

So, it's ok for Germany to be a cockbag to other countries when its in Germany's interest, but when other countries do it, it's not ok?

You claimed that Germany simply started wars out of its desire to "take over France".

No, actually I didn't. I said that Germany turned WWI from a local conflict into a global war because it wanted to take over France, and that it took over France for the fun of it in WWII.

Vichy France was still allowed to maintain some independence in domestic affairs and its policies, centered around Petain's Révolution nationale, were based upon integralist and organic French principles and ideas which only took root in Germany following the political surge of Fascism in Europe as a whole.

It was still a German Puppet State.

[Far-Right Sage]

So, it's ok for Germany to be a cockbag to other countries when its in Germany's interest, but when other countries do it, it's not ok?

What are you defining as "ok"? This has been a discussion of differing and divergent viewpoints. Whatever is in the German interest is "ok".

No, actually I didn't. I said that Germany turned WWI from a local conflict into a global war because it wanted to take over France, and that it took over France for the fun of it in WWII.

Both of which are completely fallacious assertions.

It was still a German Puppet State.

Of course it was. Irrelevant.

[Wolfman]

What are you defining as "ok"?

Acceptable?

This has been a discussion of differing and divergent viewpoints. Whatever is in the German interest is "ok".

But it's not OK for other countries to do the exact same thing?

Both of which are completely fallacious assertions.

Let me take a page from your book:
No, I'm right.

It was still a German Puppet State.

Of course it was.

Because the Germans occupied France.